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

[Metastachydium]

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

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

I found the character mostly annoying

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

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

Kubota as a close second.

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

Too bad he's painfully and stupidly petty.

they didn't really "face" Redcloak yet.

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

Nale (…) depth

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

Also not villains.

Preach it! PREACH IT!

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

I like this sentence.

♣

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

[brian 333]

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

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

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

[Fyraltari]

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

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

[Ruck]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jasdoif]

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

I rather like the book's example for that archetype: after her brother was executed for a false accusation of murder, she vowed to fight capital punishment and made it her life's work to break those convicts out of jail and sneak them out of the city to start new lives; that many of the e.g. murderers simply resume their murdering elsewhere, is lost on her.


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

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

[Peelee]

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

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

That sounds pretty villainous to me.

[Jasdoif]

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

That sounds pretty villainous to me.

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

[Peelee]

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

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

[Liquor Box]

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

That sounds pretty villainous to me.

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

[Ruck]

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

That sounds pretty villainous to me.

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

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

[Peelee]

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

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

Also, I envy your optimistic views.

[Liquor Box]

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

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

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

Also, I envy your optimistic views.

Is it? Why do you think so?

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

Also, what about what I said was optimistic?

[hroþila]

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

[Peelee]

Also, what about what I said was optimistic?

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

[Crimsonmantle]

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

what'd do, eat Roy's lettuce?

[Satohika]

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

[WanderingMist]

Not a single mention of Trigak? Disappointing.

[Ionathus]

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

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

1.

Spoiler: SoD quote

Show

And now I see that planning doesn't matter. Strategy doesn't matter.
Only two things matter: Force in as great a concentration as you can manage, and style. And in a pinch, style can slide.

One of my all-time favorite quotes from any villain, ever. It tells you exactly what kind of person he is, and exactly how hard it will be to beat him. He is the raw force of personality and ego that there's no reasoning with, no outmaneuvering with clever plucky underdog tricks...you gotta get in there, and you gotta hit him hard, and you gotta hope you've got what it takes.

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

[Ruck]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

Tarquin. Easily.

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

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

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

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

[Peelee]

Tarquin. Easily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Peelee]

"Good for Tarquin" in what sense? Does he chase the comforts of wealth and leisure?

Yes (panel 7).

Glory? Recognition?

Yes (panels 19-20).

His own power, to the detriment of anything else?

Yes (panel 5).

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

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

[H_H_F_F]

Yes (panel 7).

Yes (panels 19-20).

Yes (panel 5).

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

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

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

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

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

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

[brian 333]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hroþila]

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

[Kish]

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

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

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

And in most of your text, we seem to agree – Tarquin cares about the story, more than he does about himself.

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

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

"HUH?" #3. He killed Nale because Nale finally communicated to him in a way he couldn't simply dismiss as drama that he didn't want to be part of Tarquin's story. He killed Nale because he understands love so little that he thinks his ego assertion (extending to literal rape for most of his wives) is love. He killed Nale because..."NO ONE DENIES ME!" I get how someone could look at those scenes and conclude that he cared about Malack or that he actually, as he himself said, just treated Nale the way he would have treated a stranger who killed Malack; I don't agree and think that requires ignoring a ton of context, but I see how someone could get there. I don't see how you're using him murdering Nale as an argument for his depth and complexity at all.

[Peelee]

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

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

[Fyraltari]

discussing what truly moves Tarquin can still start arguments

Accurate.0

[Dame_Mechanus]

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

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

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

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

He is wrong.

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

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