Incomplete plotlines...

[Emanick]

If we ever get back to the western continent, my money would be on "after Tarkin has been defeated by another hero or villain". Getting defeated offscreen by a b-ranker nobody is interested about would be a nice "screw you" for Tarkin

I think this is a pretty good bet. We might see Tarquin again, but if so, he’ll probably be in jail or something, raging impotently about how this is a terrible story while somebody else deadpans about how they already did this bit and how, for somebody who prides himself on his mastery of narrative conventions, he’s being awfully redundant.

[BaronOfHell]

And the whole point of Tarquin is that he'd fall off-screen because if he's relevant, he wins, but if he's a mere footnote, he loses.

Says Tarquin, but that doesn't mean it is wrong to defeat him. I believe e.g. Roy would care much more about the people Tarquin oppress than Tarquin's own measure of success.

Elan is afraid that not considering how to defeat his father will make Tarquin inspire other future villains, and Tarquin calls that a win. In fact Tarquin claims to already have won since he has been sitting on the throne, comfortably, for years.

If any of this has anything to do with Tarquin's true intentions, I don't know, for a man who has already won he fell apart surprisingly easy when he couldn't get the extra sprinkles.

All in all I don't believe there was much, if anything, Tarquin could do to be anything, but a speed-bump for the Order, but that was because of the priorities the Order decided for themselves (like saving the world here and now is more relevant than dethroning an evil warlord), not because of anything Tarquin said.
Hence when the world is safe, I don't see anything preventing the Order to return and oppose Tarquin & co.

I would be astonished if we saw Tarquin again. The conclusion to the Empire of Blood arc established that Tarquin isn't part of Elan's story and he's not relevant to the comic's narrative. Having the comic show what's going on with Tarquin or the efforts to overthrow him would invalidate that conclusion, and I can't think of anything that would justify doing so.

But we did get a "snarl lashing out" type of cliffhanger: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html

If we ever get back to the western continent, my money would be on "after Tarkin has been defeated by another hero or villain". Getting defeated offscreen by a b-ranker nobody is interested about would be a nice "screw you" for Tarkin

I think that Tarquin himself admitted to have been foiled by Scoundrel before, who in my opinion is pretty much a b(or even c)-lister in this story.

[InvisibleBison]

But we did get a "snarl lashing out" type of cliffhanger: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html

The point of that scene was to illustrate to the reader that Roy is correct when he says that the Order doesn't know what's going on anymore. The payoff for that scene will come when the Order finds the truth about what's going on with the Snarl, not when the narrative follows up on what happened to Laurin and Miron after the Snarl jumped them.

[Sir_Norbert]

Why can't it be both? Of course the main function of that scene was to heighten our uncertainty about the Snarl. But that could have been done just by showing the Snarl poking out of the rift; the scene didn't have to include Miron or Laurin at all. The reason it did include them is that Rich is a skilled enough storycrafter to know that (1) readers would already be interested in what happens to them after the conclusion of the "Order visits the Empire of Blood" arc; (2) that showing them and increasing our uncertainty as to their fates would leave us even more curious and invested in waiting until we find out more.

Tarquin isn't going to be part of the main storyline any more; he was an arc villain and his arc is over. But the whole idea that we can't see him again because that would somehow prove him right is only possible to believe if you buy into his whole notion that stories are more important than people's lives. And the whole point of the ending of BRitF was to prove that idea wrong.

[Mike Havran]

Not to mention Tarquin dying off screen or being thrown into jail is precisely the sort of a fate he would not mind too much, I believe.

[Bacon Elemental]

Why can't it be both? Of course the main function of that scene was to heighten our uncertainty about the Snarl. But that could have been done just by showing the Snarl poking out of the rift; the scene didn't have to include Miron or Laurin at all. The reason it did include them is that Rich is a skilled enough storycrafter to know that (1) readers would already be interested in what happens to them after the conclusion of the "Order visits the Empire of Blood" arc; (2) that showing them and increasing our uncertainty as to their fates would leave us even more curious and invested in waiting until we find out more.

Tarquin isn't going to be part of the main storyline any more; he was an arc villain and his arc is over. But the whole idea that we can't see him again because that would somehow prove him right is only possible to believe if you buy into his whole notion that stories are more important than people's lives. And the whole point of the ending of BRitF was to prove that idea wrong.

1) Also they did some serious-actor exposition not possible by a random EOS soldier poking the rift, the fact she was using magic through the rift could be important to it appearing, it neatly wrapped up the favour she wanted (Rich needed to spell that one out because weirdly a lot of people thought it was sex), and 3) having two of the most powerful antagonists the order has faced in the whole comic get bushwomped by the Snarl making its first comic appearance for years at a time when the forums were still divided as to whether the snarl was real at all after the end of DStP is a hell of a way to say "****'s gonna get real"

2) Tarquin (because he thinks hes the central villain and therefore plot critical) declared that the options were "Fight me and overthrow me in a climactic duel" or "I win and continue being a tyrant". Elan, because he's busy saving the world, handed off a plan to beat him to the gang of people tarquin wronged and then left. So the third option is "Tarquin's reign of blood is ended by his scheme being dismantled off-screen and only being referenced in the epilogue". He doesn't need stage-chewing screen-time to be defeated.

However I do think you're right in that we'll see a little more of Laurin/Miron, likely a few aside/beat panels, but almost certainly not until after whatever happened to them has begun to be explained by the actual main plot.

[Squire Doodad]

However I do think you're right in that we'll see a little more of Laurin/Miron, likely a few aside/beat panels, but almost certainly not until after whatever happened to them has begun to be explained by the actual main plot.

I, for one, am very much looking forward to the story of the Siege of Tears and the defeat of the greatest general of his time, Artificer Sir Schulterpolster.

[Riftwolf]

I think the number of loose threads and unresolved plots make the world feel bigger than the Order's story. Unlike a lot of video games, the heroes aren't solving every dispute and scraped knee themselves, but leaving them in the hands of other people they can trust (for better or worse). Tarquins subquest is now with Ian and the resistance, the Azurites are Hinjos responsibility, the last dwarf vampire (and by extension the Godsmoot) is being dealt with by Durkons family.
The only way we'd cut back to these subplots is if they impacted the main plot (like the crushing of the resistance in Gobbotopia). For example Ian might send a message to Haley about information he's uncovered about Laurin and Mirons encounter with the Snarl. I doubt we'll ever see Tarquin in-panel again.

[Ruck]

I think the number of loose threads and unresolved plots make the world feel bigger than the Order's story.

Agreed, and it's a pretty impressive feat given how much of the world Rich deliberately makes generic, that it still feels real and like it exists beyond the Order and their adventures.

(I was thinking about this after the "Belkar and Serini will turn out to be related" idea was floated again, because, similarly, I think that kind of "everyone is actually related in some way" writing also makes the story smaller. So I think/hope something like that does not happen.)

[Hurkyl]

I think the number of loose threads and unresolved plots make the world feel bigger than the Order's story. Unlike a lot of video games, the heroes aren't solving every dispute and scraped knee themselves, but leaving them in the hands of other people they can trust (for better or worse). Tarquins subquest is now with Ian and the resistance, the Azurites are Hinjos responsibility, the last dwarf vampire (and by extension the Godsmoot) is being dealt with by Durkons family.
The only way we'd cut back to these subplots is if they impacted the main plot (like the crushing of the resistance in Gobbotopia). For example Ian might send a message to Haley about information he's uncovered about Laurin and Mirons encounter with the Snarl. I doubt we'll ever see Tarquin in-panel again.

Random aside: could this even be a D&D reference itself, with the DM wanting to leave enough loose threads in adventure locations, just to give them options for creating plot should the DM ever want the campaign to revisit the location, or if the PCs do so on their own?

[littlebum2002]

On the topic of unresolved plot points, don't forget The Thing That Haley Was Going to Confess to Elan and The Thing That Roy Told His Archon to do. Both of those have to be resolved at some point.

I would be astonished if we saw Tarquin again. The conclusion to the Empire of Blood arc established that Tarquin isn't part of Elan's story and he's not relevant to the comic's narrative. Having the comic show what's going on with Tarquin or the efforts to overthrow him would invalidate that conclusion, and I can't think of anything that would justify doing so.

Narrative reasons. Elan clearly gave Ian a plan in secret because he knows that , if you state your plan out loud, it always fails. We are definitely going to find out what he said to Ian before the story ends.

I think we'll see Tarquin again, though maybe in a scene with Ian and not with the Order. There's still the dangling question of what the secret plan is that Elan whispered to Ian.

I think he told Ian to kill Tarquin off-screen. Being killed off-screen means you weren't important enough for your death to be shown.

[Riftwolf]

I think he told Ian to kill Tarquin off-screen. Being killed off-screen means you weren't important enough for your death to be shown.

Trying to think of on-screen villains who get killed off-screen. Really am drawing a blank as it's not a movie-y thing to do. The only examples I can think of are from games.

[Peelee]

Trying to think of on-screen villains who get killed off-screen. Really am drawing a blank as it's not a movie-y thing to do. The only examples I can think of are from games.

Grand Moff Tarquin. Darth Vader. The Emperor.

[Ruck]

On the topic of unresolved plot points, don't forget The Thing That Haley Was Going to Confess to Elan and The Thing That Roy Told His Archon to do. Both of those have to be resolved at some point.

I don't think the first one is really a plot point, more a bit of trivia-- and I think it's possible that Rich addressed this? Maybe having to do with her lapsed membership in the Thieves Guild?

The second one is definitely a plot point and I expect we will find out what it is before the end.

[Emanick]

Grand Moff Tarquin. Darth Vader. The Emperor.

I'm not sure any of these are particularly good examples. We see the colossal explosion of the ship Tarkin is on; showing his actual death would have been impractical, given the size of the blast, but we see the explosion he dies in, which is good enough IMO. Vader is no longer fulfilling the narrative role of a villain when he dies, so I'm not sure he counts either. And we see The Emperor thrown to his death (yes, I'm choosing to ignore Episode IX here), so we see him being killed, even if we don't actually see his body splat.

Macbeth is my go-to example of a villain who gets killed "offscreen." He is defeated in his final scene, at least narratively speaking, by Macduff, who removes the last remaining thread of hope Macbeth is clinging to by revealing that he is not "of woman born," so it's not important that we actually see the moment of Macbeth's death. In that sense he seems pretty similar to Tarquin - like Macbeth, we probably won't see Tarquin get killed on-panel, but as he's already been defeated "onscreen," the actual moment of his death is unnecessary to show.

[Peelee]

I'm not sure any of these are particularly good examples. We see the colossal explosion of the ship Tarkin is on; showing his actual death would have been impractical, given the size of the blast, but we see the explosion he dies in, which is good enough IMO. Vader is no longer fulfilling the narrative role of a villain when he dies, so I'm not sure he counts either. And we see The Emperor thrown to his death (yes, I'm choosing to ignore Episode IX here), so we see him being killed, even if we don't actually see his body splat.

How familiar are you with the character of Murdoc in Richard Dean Anderson's MacGuyver? Because we saw the explosion he died in/him being thrown to his death every other episode, and yet he always came back.

[brian 333]

The biggest dangling plot thread is whether or not the dirt farmers reconciled.

[Fyraltari]

Grand Moff Tarquin. Darth Vader. The Emperor.

We may not see Tarkin's dead body, but we doo see his ship explode. Vader expires on-screen in Luke's hands and the Emperor explodes on-screen while going down the shaft.

Off-screen deaths are more for minor villains. And I think it's more common for literary villains, since the difference between the narrator telling us their death and a character telling us of their death is less pronounced than in a movie. Half the conspirators in Dune Messiah are executed between the last two chapters, for example.

Still, I don't think that's what Elan told Ian because it wouldn't help him at all. One, it still lacks the bit on how to defeat Tarquin, which is what Ian needs. And Two, Ian & Co don't care for the narrative structure of The Order of the Stick and Tarquin's role in it, as far as they are concerned, he is the main villain.

[Peelee]

the Emperor explodes on-screen while going down the shaft.

The Emperor falls out of visibility. We then see an explosion. We then see the Death Star explode. We then turn the TV on to MacGuyver and watch as Murdoc is shockingly behind the goings-on this week and think nothing of it.

[Raimun]

At the moment, the "incomplete" plotlines all have a stable status quo. Except, of course, stuff like Redcloak and Xykon's phylactery, which obviously have only been set up and it's not yet time to resolve them.

For example, azurites are now inhabiting an old elven island with plenty of resources. I suppose this could be the last mention of the azurites in the comic. The story is about The Order of the Stick, not azurites. The world is a living place and nothing ever ends: when the story is over, it doesn't (probably) mean the world ends.

However, I wouldn't be too surprised if we got to see, for example, azurites again. I mean, who knows? Significant changes don't always need lots of screen time. Maybe after The Order stops Xykon, we see an epilogue with a panel (or two) where victorious Hinjo reconquers Azure City from the goblins? Or we see how he now leads content azurites in their new island and is maybe even planning expanding their territories?

I think any of the "incomplete" plotlines could be resolved similarly.

[Ruck]

Trying to think of on-screen villains who get killed off-screen. Really am drawing a blank as it's not a movie-y thing to do. The only examples I can think of are from games.

Douglas Neidermeyer?

[brian 333]

Getting killed off-screen is generally a way to leave open the possibility of the character's return. Except in OotS where characters killed on-page can be raised. Or made into undead. Or constructs.

[Crusher]

Douglas Neidermeyer?

Hah. Yes, we assume the narrator is providing accurate information. Which might be a mistake. Is it *really* likely that Blutarsky becomes a Senator? Maybe so.

[Peelee]

Douglas Neidermeyer?

NEIDERMEYER!

Hah. Yes, we assume the narrator is providing accurate information. Which might be a mistake. Is it *really* likely that Blutarsky becomes a Senator? Maybe so.

Frankly, Neidermeyer's and Blutarsky's endings were the most believable parts.

[Ruck]

Hah. Yes, we assume the narrator is providing accurate information. Which might be a mistake. Is it *really* likely that Blutarsky becomes a Senator? Maybe so.

Frankly, Neidermeyer's and Blutarsky's endings were the most believable parts.

Yes, absolutely.

The fates of the Deltas is a great joke about the broader idea at play, too; that for all their rebel posturing and fighting The Man, they are really cut from the same coddled rich white kid cloth as the Omegas, and all of this is meaningless because they'll end up in the cushy careers and lives their privilege affords them, same as the people they're fighting, once it's all said and done.

[BaronOfHell]

I think he told Ian to kill Tarquin off-screen. Being killed off-screen means you weren't important enough for your death to be shown.

To me, that just doesn't sound like Elan.