What if Elan and Nale parents were switched?

[Errorname]

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

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

[Peelee]

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

Yes, but i maintain that he's hardly as charming as people claim.

[brian 333]

Yes, but i maintain that he's hardly as charming as people claim.

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

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

[Errorname]

Yes, but i maintain that he's hardly as charming as people claim.

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

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

[Peelee]

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

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

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

[Errorname]

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

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

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

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

[Precure]

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

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

[ZhonLord]

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

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

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

[Metastachydium]

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

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

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

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

[NontheistCleric]

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

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

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

[Peelee]

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

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

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

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

[Tubercular Ox]

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

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

[Peelee]

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

Association with... himself?

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

[Sir_Norbert]

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

- he thinks he's charming, but he's not.

That's a good way to put it. He also thinks that he's cleverer than he really is.

I think it's worth separating charming as a villain from charming as a person.

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

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

Nice and concise, well played.

[Errorname]

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

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

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

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

[Tubercular Ox]

Is a villain not a person?

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

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

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

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

[brian 333]

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

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

Somebody famous said that.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, a villain is a character. .

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

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

Somebody famous said that.

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

Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Spoiler: Here is wherefore

Show

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

[Errorname]

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

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

[Metastachydium]

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

Prickles. Roses has prickles, not thorns.

[Peelee]

Prickles. Roses has prickles, not thorns.

A prickle by any other name would sting as sharply.

[KorvinStarmast]

Prickles. Roses has prickles, not thorns.

In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.
Every Rose Has Its Thorns

[brian 333]

In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.
Every Rose Has Its Thorns

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

[Errorname]

In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.
Every Rose Has Its Thorns

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

[Peelee]

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

I dunno, I'd say it feels needles.

[brian 333]

I dunno, I'd say it feels needles.

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

[Ron Miel]

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

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

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

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


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

[Metastachydium]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

That may be the fallacy of the excluded middle in operation, or something else like a false dichotomy. In any case, advice rejected.