A question regarding Tarquin and the Empire of Blood

[Emanick]

If we ever return to Tarquin & C:o, here's how I'd like to see it play out:

As things turn out, the only reason the Empire of Blood hadn't collapsed already despite Tarquin thinking like a story is that Malack was in place to keep him under wraps and not indulge in his proclivities. With him out of the picture, in conjunction with the plan Elan provided Ian, Amun-Zora, Enor and Gannji, the empire is toppled in a deliberately unspecified way, and Tarquin is forced to live a regular life. Being denied his position both as a de facto dictator and as a main villain of a story, he decides to pursue the Order to have a grand climactic showdown to at least assure the latter. In the showdown he gains the upper hand, before Elan lures him by telling how he'll retell his adventures and how he was conflicted by one of his main antagonists being related to him (something that makes Tarquin go "Yes! Yes! Yes!") before revealing that he'd merge his character with Nale in his story, since it is easier to keep track of, the audience already know of the character and any budding villain hearing the story would conclude that Nale's behaviour was worth emulating since he apparently ruled an empire, thereby stopping them in their tracks. That will leave Tarquin outraged, him being denied the glory, to which Elan will claim that he is already sounding more and more like Nale. They then defeat him, his only possible role in the story going forwards being the one left void by Nale, i.e. as a reoccurring minor threat not worth considering.

I love this. This is great. Elan trolling Tarquin this way would be hilarious, and this scenario would be in character for both of them.

Would you prefer Exhibit A? (On a more serious note, it's a turn of phrase I like for some reason; I didn't mean to offend you and apologies if I did that anyway.)

I am not Fyraltari, obviously, but I was also confused by what you meant by calling him an "annexed figure." It didn't strike me as offensive so much as completely nonsensical; I have absolutely no idea what that phrase could mean, at least outside of a few very specific contexts that don't apply here.

[Metastachydium]

I am not Fyraltari, obviously, but I was also confused by what you meant by calling him an "annexed figure." It didn't strike me as offensive so much as completely nonsensical; I have absolutely no idea what that phrase could mean, at least outside of a few very specific contexts that don't apply here.

Now, your confusion only serves to confuse me in turn. The phrase in question tends to refer to an image/diagram/whatever that is shown alongside some manner of text, illustrating some aspect thereof. It may feature examples or further specifications that would otherwise clutter up the text. Fyraltari functioned as a such insofar as his position exemplified a stance on what role Tarquin may or may not have before the story would conclude.

[Peelee]

Okay, but the point of that story is that one may have villains who have genuinely good traits in them.

No it wasn't. The point of that story, which was explicitly stated in that story, was that thinking purely logically and ignoring any emotional thought is a mistake. And that is exactly what you're doing here. You're ignoring that they can have emotional feelings and just handwaving away any assertion that your base assumption might be wrong.

I have explained it several times, let me make one last attempt: People can change

If you can change, that means you are not incapable of understanding. It may mean that you don't currently understand, but it doesn't mean that you can't understand. You're saying that they are incapable of understanding because of what they are. Hell, why not just say the goblins are incapable of understanding civilization because they're goblins? Sure, some can change like the ones in the hobgoblin village...

To me it seems that you are refusing to listen to the arguments I presented, and it is starting to wear my patience off.

I can promise you, I am listening to your arguments. It's just that I see them as bad arguments at best and atrocious at worst. I fundamentally disagree with your arguments at the most basic level.

I think it was certainly huge and central to the most recent book that Tarquin didn't understand love. Or understand that he didn't understand love.

Sure, Tarquin didn't. Not because he was a human, or because of what class he was, or because he was Evil. He didn't understand love because he couldn't comprehend the concept of doing something for others without any gain to himself. Which is a far cry from "the fiends cannot understand love because they are fiends". Sure they may not, but we haven't seen nearly enough about them to make that call.

[stevecharb]

My guess:

Spoiler

Show

Tarquin returns for the final battle against Xykon, opting for a heel-face turn, but then he and his armies are destroyed. Elan discusses the Redemption Equals Death trope with his dying father.

[Bacon Elemental]

And?
It's like how in The Lord of the Rings Sauron can manipulate Saruman, Denethor or Ar-Pharzôn and predict how they going to act, but is at a loss when it comes to Gandalf, Frodo or Aragorn because the former act on their evil impulses and thought-process while the latter don't and he can only relate to that anymore.

Mostly what Sauron uses to manipulate people is fear and greed (And he's much better at the former). Denethor wasn't manipulated because he acts on his evil impulses, he was manipulated by being surreptitiously shown through Sauron's control of the other Palantir how utterly impossible it was to defeat Sauron and how the destruction of his people was inevitable no matter how hard he looked for a way out. Saruman seems to have been a similar case, except his greater knowledge of Sauron made it all the more crushing a blow such that he actually changed sides (mostly). Ar-Pharazon was manipulated because Sauron understood how even the greatest of all lords and kings feared death, and dangled that fear over the kings of Numenor's heads. Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn mostly have the dual advantages of 1) Sauron not having time to directly assault their fears and worries and 2) Sure knowledge that hope remains as long as Frodo gets closer to Mount Doom and the destruction of the Ring. Without those advantages I'm sure that in time even they could have been cowed.

The only real blind spot of Sauron was the idea that anyone might choose to try and destroy the One Ring. It was an object of immense power, that many of even the wise assumed would grant them vast powers if they claimed and mastered it (Whether it actually would have is much-debated), and caused immense magical greed and possessiveness on the bearer. He was absolutely sure that even the most incorruptible of souls would never be able to destroy it, and at the very last was proven correct. NOBODY could have actually willingly stood in the cracks of doom and dropped it into the fire. Only fate and the previous mercy of the hobbits allowed for any result but his victory.

Ultimately even Sauron is not just mere Evil incarnate.

[WanderingMist]

He was absolutely sure that even the most incorruptible of souls would never be able to destroy it, and at the very last was proven correct. NOBODY could have actually willingly stood in the cracks of doom and dropped it into the fire. Only fate and the previous mercy of the hobbits allowed for any result but his victory.

Ultimately even Sauron is not just mere Evil incarnate.

Didn't the Ring fail entirely on Sam, though? I think he would have willingly thrown it in, and possibly the only reason he didn't just push Frodo in when Frodo faltered at the crevice was out of loyalty to Frodo.

[Laurentio III]

Sam's defense was humbleness, and he could resist the lure of the One Ring like few people could. But he didn't have to carry it for days, so we don't know who would have won in the end.
For sure, there was a reason for Gandalf to put Sam on Frodo's heels.

[ZhonLord]

Didn't the Ring fail entirely on Sam, though? I think he would have willingly thrown it in, and possibly the only reason he didn't just push Frodo in when Frodo faltered at the crevice was out of loyalty to Frodo.

Actually no. In the books, Sam used the Ring to save Frodo, and in the half a day it took for him to get to his hobbit buddy, the ring had woven a fantasy for him of using its power combined with his gardening skills to bring greenery back to Mordor, and convert the remaining orcs to good guys by showing them how awesome it is to grow your own food and taste the fruits of your labors. He BARELY had enough willpower to hand it back to Frodo at the top of that watch tower instead of running off with it like a new Golumn.

Now granted, 6-10 hours of resisting the One Ring is still an unprecedented feat for anyone else. Isildur himself fell to it in a matter of one hour or less. Gandalf was so terrified of touching it for longer than five seconds that he clearly felt temptation. Galadriel nearly lost herself just from being offered it. Sam is a boss of a halfling and definitely had the right stuff to resist the Ring for a while, but he would NOT have been able to finish taking the Ring to Mount Doom himself and throw it in. It HAD to be Frodo who took it the final length, or else it wouldn't have happened at all.

[Fyraltari]

To be fair to Isildur, the closer the Ring gets to Mount Doom, the more powerful its allure. The Professor once wrote that no-one East of the Great Sea (which I'm pretty sure means no one but Manwë, who alledgedly has no evil whatsoever in his heart) could have actually mustered the will to destroy it. Which is why Providence, in the form of Gollum, had to step in and finish the job once the mortals had done all they could and proven their worth by sparing Gollum a handful of times.

[Metastachydium]

his gardening skills to bring greenery back to Mordor, and convert the remaining orcs to good guys by showing them how awesome it is to grow your own food and taste the fruits of your labors.

I want an apocryphal sequel where that actually happens. I want it.

[Fyraltari]

I want an apocryphal sequel where that actually happens. I want it.

Spoiler: Ask and ye shall receive

Show

[Metastachydium]

Spoiler: Ask and ye shall receive

Show

…
Some of your sins are hereby forgiven. (WHY ARE THOSE ORCS SO CUTE EVEN BEFORE TURNING INTO BIRDIES?)

[Laurentio III]

…
Some of your sins are hereby forgiven. (WHY ARE THOSE ORCS SO CUTE EVEN BEFORE TURNING INTO BIRDIES?)

And what were the knights for? Cheerleadering?

[Fyraltari]

And what were the knights for? Cheerleadering?

Yes. It's part of the power fantasy.

[Laurentio III]

Yes. It's part of the power fantasy.

My personal power fantasies requires a lot less of Y-chromosome bystanders, but it's Sam we are speaking about.

Anyway, it's a great short. Thanks for the sharing!

[Fyraltari]

…
Some of your sins are hereby forgiven. (WHY ARE THOSE ORCS SO CUTE EVEN BEFORE TURNING INTO BIRDIES?)

They were Elves once...

Spoiler: As is evidenced by their lovely singing voices

Show

Anyway, it's a great short. Thanks for the sharing!

Short? It's a movie!

[Laurentio III]

Short? It's a movie!

Thanks for the five minutes of it.

[Metastachydium]

They were Elves once...

Spoiler: As is evidenced by their lovely singing voices

Show

[video=youtube;YdXQJS3Yv0Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y[video]

Cursed be, vile Frenchman! Now it's stuck in my head (my upper bits (my metaphorical upper bits (whatever; you get what I mean)))!

[Rrmcklin]

For my part, I've never seen a reason for Tarquin or his merry band to enter the story as a major part ever again, as that always struck me as going against exactly what the author actually wanted.

As far as Sabine goes, whether her love for Nale is genuine or not, if I'm understanding the conversation it reads a bit like we're just ignoring the things the author has said applies to and he thinks about while writing evil characters as if they don't apply to Sabine for some reason.

Unless the argument has become, not just that she isn't a living incarnation of evil anymore (dubious), but also that she just literally isn't even evil anymore.

[pyrefiend]

I feel like all of the "pure incarnation of evil" talk is not really that helpful.

The point is that Sabine loves Nale, and maybe the IFCC won't correctly predict her actions because they don't understand love. Maybe they don't understand love because their particular brand of evil is of the pragmatic, cold-and-calculating variety.

I don't think this will turn out to be the case. (For one thing, the IFCC make scarily accurate Pre-Faustian psych reports, so I'd say they seem to have a good understanding of emotions.) But I don't think that it's a totally absurd idea, either.

[ti'esar]

My expectation would be a temporary return to Girard's Rift in order to seal it up after the Dark One's finally convinced to ally with existing pantheons. They arrive, see the carnage the Snarl has caused, have some interactions with the Tarquin Squad, then seal up the rift and move on to the next one.

Emphasis mine, because while I don't think things will play out this way, I do think the thread focusing entirely on Tarquin is missing the point that the biggest loose end related to the Vector Legion and BS&T empires isn't him, it's the tower-sized tentacles of eldritchness erupting out of Girard's Rift when last seen. It's entirely possible that scene was only meant to show that the Snarl does exist and is now "awake" again - or whatever - but it's not a certainty.