The rapid change in Tarquin

[masamune1]

Guys, can we please remember that Tarquin is an intelligent LE NPC with delusions of grandeur? I mena, it's like he said, he wants a legacy, and running an empire form behind the scenes won't bring that. So, instead he wants a legacyof which bards will tell tales of aeons to come. It's no coincidence he, with this genre savviness, uses Star Wars References, only he was smarter: he bet on 2 horses, or sons so to speak. The first was to crate a way of a dynasty (Nale following him up as shadow ruler/evil overlord), the second he had as a back-up for when the son was disappointing him. If we really compare Star Wars to the current plot of OotS, Roy is Han Solo. IN the original movies (IIRC), Han Solo is the hero, hte leader, etc. When Han is encased in carbonite, Luke takes over and by Return of the Jedi Han has gone to sidekick, and Luke has become the hero. In the current storytelling of OotS, We allready see Elan showing leader traits (making plans, using resources, etc.). But things are not going the way Tarquin want them to. They are moving too slow and Targuin is trying to speed up that process.

Something tells me Tarquin has a secret involving his time left and I think it's not much, else Tarquin woudl have let them get away trusting in the laws of narrative to grant Elan his spotlight and defeat him. The fact that he wants his demise as soon as possible prompts me to believe that his time is indeed dwindling and he knows it.

Luke was always the main hero. Star Wars is a sci-fi fantasy epic, and epics usually have more than one main character. Luke, Han, Vader and Leia were all the main characters, with Luke as the First Among Equals.

Tarquin simply doesn't realize he is in a fantasy epic (if a fairly satirical one starring stick men). He thinks he is in a Sword and Sorcery with one main hero (Elan) and one main villain (himself), which suggests Nale was somewhat right about his lack of ambition. Not to mention saying volumes about how self-centred he is.

Or maybe he thinks he's just in a different sort of epic, starring himself, with Elan as his second main character. Roy is Obi-Wan, and will share the same fate.

[Lamech]

Frankly, I'm more surprised that Laurin is keeping this up. Loyalty to a friend is a good thing, but I would have expected her to say "Give up, they've won this round" by now.

Because quite frankly Tarquin is winning. The OotS has been on the run essentially this whole fight. This is not a fair fight. The only real victory they have had is triggering contingencies. Worse their is a very good chance scarf guy is healing up to teleport back. And if the OotS ever does start winning Laurin can just port out with Tarquin.

[masamune1]

Also, from the POV of the characters, the fight has only been on a few minutes. And Laurin might feel that she owes it to the men she let Tarquin send to their deaths to kill these little pricks.

[The Giant]

I can't think of anything more boring than a character who always wins and never gets emotionally impacted by anything.

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way. If you are the sort of person that can commit the acts that Tarquin does daily, then that will find its way into every aspect of your existence. It's who you are. This idea that Tarquin was this perfectly rational actor despite being a complete monster at his Day Job is a pipe dream. Tarquin wants you (and Elan) to think that what he does is separate from who he is—that he's a fundamentally decent man who just so happens to murder a bunch of people here and there—because that's how he tricks you into slowly accepting his blatant Evil as a valid life choice that needs to be respected. Which it is not.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

[CaDzilla]

I can't think of anything more boring than a character who always wins and never gets emotionally impacted by anything.

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way. If you are the sort of person that can commit the acts that Tarquin does daily, then that will find its way into every aspect of your existence. It's who you are. This idea that Tarquin was this perfectly rational actor despite being a complete monster at his Day Job is a pipe dream. Tarquin wants you (and Elan) to think that what he does is separate from who he is—that he's a fundamentally decent man who just so happens to murder a bunch of people here and there—because that's how he tricks you into slowly accepting his blatant Evil as a valid life choice that needs to be respected. Which it is not.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

So are you admitting that Tarquin is a rapist? Also, is Tarquin's amount of kilonazis higher than Xykon's

[zimmerwald1915]

I can't think of anything more boring than a character who always wins and never gets emotionally impacted by anything.

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way. If you are the sort of person that can commit the acts that Tarquin does daily, then that will find its way into every aspect of your existence. It's who you are. This idea that Tarquin was this perfectly rational actor despite being a complete monster at his Day Job is a pipe dream. Tarquin wants you (and Elan) to think that what he does is separate from who he is—that he's a fundamentally decent man who just so happens to murder a bunch of people here and there—because that's how he tricks you into slowly accepting his blatant Evil as a valid life choice that needs to be respected. Which it is not.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

I realize a word-for-word transcription is too much to hope for, but I would love to see this point repeated in the Book 5 commentary.

[zimmerwald1915]

So does that mean that Tarquin is a rapist? Also, is Tarquin's amount of kilonazis higher than Xykon's

A marriage by duress is no marriage at all, and sex by duress sufficient to overcome express lack of consent is rape. Make the judgment.

[Math_Mage]

So does that mean that Tarquin is a rapist? Also, is Tarquin's amount of kilonazis higher than Xykon's

Yes (Tarquin all but states it in the comic) and no (Tarquin's Evil is more insidious than Xykon's, but not more Evil).

[CaDzilla]

A marriage by duress is no marriage at all, and sex by duress sufficient to overcome express lack of consent is rape. Make the judgment.

I was asking if he actually...consummated his duressed marriages

[The Giant]

I was asking if he actually...consummated his duressed marriages

It doesn't matter either way (and I have no intention of exploring it further). It's attempted rape regardless, and someone who repeatedly attempts rape is a rapist, even if he never succeeds.

[rbetieh]

The Generalisimo just hates Chaos. What he seems to take seriously is challenges to the way he believes things ought to work. Take the example of Enor and Ganji, he let those two go, more because they served their function (entertaining the crowd) than for anything else. Elan thought that the two had defied his authority, and Tarquin states that they have, but they did not defy their function. That is what really matters.

[CaDzilla]

It doesn't matter either way (and I have no intention of exploring it further). It's attempted rape regardless, and someone who repeatedly attempts rape is a rapist, even if he never succeeds.

How does/did the rest of Team Tarquin think about this tendency of his? By which I mean his forced marriages

[Kish]

So are you admitting that Tarquin is a rapist?

Damn, I was hoping Rich would answer this, so I could ask him if he's admitting that Blackwing is smaller than the Mechane.

(The preceding post may contain traces of sarcasm.)

[oppyu]

Yes, Tarquin is a rapist.

[SaintRidley]

Yes, Tarquin is a rapist.

Those might need to be bigger. And on fire. And made from a tasteful arrangement of slaves before some people get it.

[CaDzilla]

I just wanted to know if he ever succeeded. I am relieved that he didn't.

[NerdyKris]

I just wanted to know if he ever succeeded. I am relieved that he didn't.

Rich didn't say that. He said he wasn't going to explore the question. That's not a no.

[The Fury]

How does/did the rest of Team Tarquin think about this tendency of his? By which I mean his forced marriages

They seem all right with it. At least Scarf-guy does.

[Math_Mage]

The Generalisimo just hates Chaos. What he seems to take seriously is challenges to the way he believes things ought to work. Take the example of Enor and Ganji, he let those two go, more because they served their function (entertaining the crowd) than for anything else. Elan thought that the two had defied his authority, and Tarquin states that they have, but they did not defy their function. That is what really matters.

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the assertion that this is "just" animosity towards Chaos, because Tarquin's beliefs about the way things ought to work are relevant to this analysis.

[Vaylon]

You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way.

You're absolutely wrong here. For example, there are plenty of cases where children had no idea that their parents had committed atrocities or had helped commit atrocities. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Virginia, people can and do do horrible things and otherwise come across as decent people to those who don't know about their actions. It's astounding that you think otherwise.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

All this talk in the comic about upsetting traditional narratives, and here you are on the forums complaining about the fact that your audience loves the villain.

[BlackDragonKing]

I'm extremely uncomfortable with the assertion that this is "just" animosity towards Chaos, because Tarquin's beliefs about the way things ought to work are relevant to this analysis.

I'm not sure, I kind of see that point.

Tarquin's not evil AND Lawful, he's SUCH an evil man BECAUSE he's so Lawful. He's got about the same amount of evil in him as Xykon or Nale, but unlike Redcloak, who's just Lawful Evil because he's evil with something approaching impulse control compared to 90% of the villains in the series, Tarquin is so much worse than he might be if he was Chaotic because he takes Law way, way, WAY too far.

Tarquin HATES Chaos, and everything about chaos. Freedom. Spontaneity, Creativity, uncertainty, disagreements. Tarquin cannot and doesn't want to live in a world where these things are rampant. EVERYONE needs his kind of security more than they need to be free. Or alive, for that matter. Stories happen HIS way or they don't happen, period. Arguments are resolved quickly and reasonably by Tarquin's metrics or they end with death.

Tarquin would be quite evil if he was Chaotic or Neutral, but Lawful grabs Evil and does ten consecutive touchdowns with his characterization where normally you'd expect Lawful Evil to be the pick of a bad lot because it at least has some code compared to Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Tarquin's a good example of why Lawful Evil can be so much worse when Law really gets its teeth into this whole Evil thing instead of struggling with it.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't really think "deficient reasoning" is a necessary flaw of evil.

"Evil" is a necessary flaw of evil.

[zimmerwald1915]

You're absolutely wrong here. For example, there are plenty of cases where children had no idea that their parents had committed atrocities or had helped commit atrocities. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Virginia, people can and do do horrible things and otherwise come across as decent people to those who don't know about their actions. It's astounding that you think otherwise.

There's a fairly significant difference between keeping something a secret from your loved ones and actually becoming a different person in their presence. It's a difference Laurin, for one, seems to appreciate.

[Ted The Bug]

there are plenty of cases where children had no idea that their parents had committed atrocities or had helped commit atrocities. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Virginia, people can and do do horrible things and otherwise come across as decent people to those who don't know about their actions.

I'd have to agree. If anything, that's something I find scariest - that some people can do horrible, horrible things, and then go home and act as if they're just another person. It's one of the most common and disturbing trends in history, and regardless of whether Tarquin fits that mold or if his rottenness extends from his Big Actions to his day-to-day life, I am surprised that that reality is so outright rejected. In the past (and even to a certain degree today), otherwise rational people have found excuses for their inexcusable behavior (it's business, I was ordered to, everyone else is doing it, etc), and once said behavior is completed, they compartmentalize it and go about their "normal" lives just like anyone.

It doesn't matter whether Tarquin is meant to be one of those, but it does matter to me that the presence of such people is acknowledged as all too real.

[Math_Mage]

I'm not sure, I kind of see that point.

Tarquin's not evil AND Lawful, he's SUCH an evil man BECAUSE he's so Lawful. He's got about the same amount of evil in him as Xykon or Nale, but unlike Redcloak, who's just Lawful Evil because he's evil with something approaching impulse control compared to 90% of the villains in the series, Tarquin is so much worse than he might be if he was Chaotic because he takes Law way, way, WAY too far.

Tarquin HATES Chaos, and everything about chaos. Freedom. Spontaneity, Creativity, uncertainty, disagreements. Tarquin cannot and doesn't want to live in a world where these things are rampant. EVERYONE needs his kind of security more than they need to be free. Or alive, for that matter. Stories happen HIS way or they don't happen, period. Arguments are resolved quickly and reasonably by Tarquin's metrics or they end with death.

Tarquin would be quite evil if he was Chaotic or Neutral, but Lawful grabs Evil and does ten consecutive touchdowns with his characterization where normally you'd expect Lawful Evil to be the pick of a bad lot because it at least has some code compared to Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil. Tarquin's a good example of why Lawful Evil can be so much worse when Law really gets its teeth into this whole Evil thing instead of struggling with it.

I disagree with several things about this post.

Starting from the bottom: No, I don't normally expect Lawful Evil to be the pick of a bad lot. Any such perception is due to either a difference in degree of Evil in your perceived norm, or your preference for Law. Law acting as a check on Evil, something for Evil to struggle with, is not the default where alignment is concerned. As for the last sentence...worse than what? Than other Evil alignments? No, because the others can be similarly amplified. Than other Lawful Evil characters? By what baseline?

Second, of course Lawful works well with Evil with respect to Tarquin's characterization. You're praising the glass for fitting the water; Tarquin's character was designed for Lawful Evil, so naturally his brand of Evil is very Lawful. That doesn't make his Evilness derive from his Lawfulness. Nor does it mean one couldn't construct a character very similar to Tarquin, alignment CE, that was just as bad as Tarquin, and devoted himself to destroying Good civilizations instead of establishing Evil ones.

Third, you're uncritically repeating the same pattern I criticized in rbetieh's post: describing Tarquin's devotion to Law in loving detail while casually reducing his Evil to the phrase "his kind of". Are we really just going to pass over the fact that Tarquin's envisioned order is a horrible place, and not just because it lacks freedom? Is it really so inconceivable that a LG character might hate chaos just as much as Tarquin, but express it differently because he actually has concern for the dignity of sentient life and has a different vision from Tarquin? Tarquin isn't Evil because he is extremely Lawful; he's just extremely Lawful Evil.

Finally, Redcloak's brand of LE is more complex than you portray it as. But that's a tale for another time.

[Boring McReader]

I disagree with several things about this post.
Third, you're uncritically repeating the same pattern I criticized in rbetieh's post: describing Tarquin's devotion to Law in loving detail while casually reducing his Evil to the phrase "his kind of". Are we really just going to pass over the fact that Tarquin's envisioned order is a horrible place, and not just because it lacks freedom? Is it really so inconceivable that a LG character might hate chaos just as much as Tarquin, but express it differently because he actually has concern for the dignity of sentient life and has a different vision from Tarquin? Tarquin isn't Evil because he is extremely Lawful; he's just extremely Lawful Evil. Whether you phrase it as Evil in a way that is very very Lawful, or Lawful in a way that is very very Evil, is window dressing.

"His kind of" evil works best if it's used as a description of his monumental narcissism. He does things because they make him happy. How they make other people feel never crosses his mind. He'll do arbitrarily cruel things or show unexpected generosity because that's what he wants to do. Sometime in his past, he took his selfish attitude and applied it to his future, and realized the best way to give himself that happiness was to take control of everything. He achieves his goals using order, but his goals are selfish and evil no matter how he reaches them.

[BlackDragonKing]

I disagree with several things about this post.

Starting from the bottom: No, I don't normally expect Lawful Evil to be the pick of a bad lot. Any such perception is due to either a difference in degree of Evil in your perceived norm, or your preference for Law. Law acting as a check on Evil, something for Evil to struggle with, is not the default where alignment is concerned. As for the last sentence...worse than what? Than other Evil alignments? No, because the others can be similarly amplified. Than other Lawful Evil characters? By what baseline?

I will admit it is a bias on my part to view that if I had to pick an Evil enemy, I would probably pick a Lawful Evil one because of the chance of them having SOME restraints on the evil they're willing to do, on top of being more predictable. I'm merely pointing out that it's a common image for Lawful Evil to be just as vicious but more restrained and methodical than Neutral Evil, who will do whatever is expedient to get their way, and Chaotic Evil, which is so unpredictable it will gladly hurt ITSELF to kill you and cannot be anticipated, reasoned with, or resolved with anything but a sharp blade or a jail cell and a prayer.

Would you disagree that Tarquin plays with that notion? I thought he certainly did; at first he does seem like the Lawful Evil villain that does his evil getting to the top and then brutally making sure nobody else can get to his level and providing an organized contrast to Xykon's willingness to annihilate everything but himself as long as his enemy's not still standing when the dust settles. But then it's flipped; Tarquin's lawfulness is shown as driving him not just to kill people for pleasure, like any evil individual will usually do, but to throttle individuality, hope, freedom, and a number of other wonderful, "messy" things out of the universe in an effort to crush it down and make everything surviving think the way he does. A lot of writers explore how frigging dangerous absolutely unfettered villains like Xykon are, but I thought it was interesting for Tarquin to go the other way with showing how an evil but intensely organized and obsessively focused mind can be just as dangerous in its own way when many Lawful Evil villains are either Lucius Malfoy, the rule-manipulating scumbag with some unimportant standards for himself that's ultimately stepped over by more unhinged villains, or someone slapping on the Hitler parallel and calling it a day. You're welcome to disagree, of course, but this is where my thoughts on evil vis a vis tarquin have led me.

Second, of course Lawful works well with Evil with respect to Tarquin's characterization. You're praising the glass for fitting the water; Tarquin's character was designed for Lawful Evil, so naturally his brand of Evil is very Lawful. That doesn't make his Evilness derive from his Lawfulness. Nor does it mean one couldn't construct a character very similar to Tarquin, alignment CE, that was just as bad as Tarquin, and devoted himself to destroying Good civilizations instead of establishing Evil ones.

I'm not sure I can agree with this; a Tarquin who is not a horrible person certainly would not be Tarquin, but I also feel that a Tarquin who is non-lawful is similarly not Tarquin at all. And while you might be thinking that seems to line up with your point, let us say that a Lawful Neutral character who doesn't care about anything but seeing the narrative rules carried out and a Chaotic Evil character obsessed with destroying Good civilizations and skating by on superficial charisma are both introduced. I would argue LN is a Tarquinesque character minus the rampaging socipathy, while CE is just a knockoff of Xykon more than "Tarquin on a different axis". Evil just wants to get ahead by making other people suffer, which is why when it's not lawful or chaotic, it just uses whatever means are expedient. Tarquin's not like that. He'll act AGAINST expedience to impose his arbitrary, cruel rules on other people because his warped Law is just that insanely important to him. Imaginary rules and formulas that cannot be fought or altered go hand-in-hand with bloodshed in the life Tarquin's carved out for himself, but I still argue that Tarquin is SUCH a bastard BECAUSE he puts those rules so far over people's lives and happiness. Tarquin can't be Neutral or Chaotic any more than he can be non-Evil; to speak of one half of his alignment is to speak of the other, but I still contend that Tarquin and his engine of human misery are a clear portrait of Lawful going way, way too far to produce a particularly virulent evil more than a portrait of an Evil character that happens to be Lawful in his operations.

Third, you're uncritically repeating the same pattern I criticized in rbetieh's post: describing Tarquin's devotion to Law in loving detail while casually reducing his Evil to the phrase "his kind of". Are we really just going to pass over the fact that Tarquin's envisioned order is a horrible place, and not just because it lacks freedom? Is it really so inconceivable that a LG character might hate chaos just as much as Tarquin, but express it differently because he actually has concern for the dignity of sentient life and has a different vision from Tarquin? Tarquin isn't Evil because he is extremely Lawful; he's just extremely Lawful Evil.

Actually, I do believe that a Lawful Good character could never hate Chaos as much as Tarquin and remain good, which might be another point of disagreement between us. You seem to think that I'm mitigating just how evil Tarquin is because I'm so focused on how obsessed he is with laws, but that's where I see his evil. All three branches of the Evil Tree create places that are horrible, but Lawful Evil, particularly as Tarquin practices it, is particularly horrible to me because it is an order that can't stand freedom, creativity, the right to be spontaneous, or any of the things that make life LIFE. It is inconceivable to me that a Lawful Good character could hate Chaos as much as Tarquin does because that implies someone that is OFFENDED by the expression of free will, who believes the logical solution to irreconcilable differences is murder on as big a scale as it takes to resolve the disagreement, that would gladly rip the capacity to dream and create out of the universe because it makes things messier, could POSSIBLY be a Good person. That is ludicrous to me. Paladins have a rigid worldview, but the only one in comic who thought stepping outside that worldview ought to be met with a drawn sword and a smiting fell DAMN hard. Lawful Good doesn't always agree with the way people express their freedoms, but it can exist with that chaos without trying to destroy it because it's Good and acknowledges Chaos has a place. Lawful Evil will annihilate anything that does not reflect itself when practiced in Tarquin's manner, and then sow salt so that nothing divergent can grow from what remains.

[Ridureyu]

Look, someone can be a mass-murdering rapist, but good to his family - sure, that happens a lot (just ask about "Iceman" Kuklinski's family. Or Salvatore Riina, former head of the Sicilian mafia who has the blood of THOUSANDS on his hands. Good family man). BUT... Rich's point is that this DOES NOT MAKE THEM A GOOD PERSON WHO DOES EVIL THINGS. IT MAKES THEM AN EVIL PERSON WHO SOMETIMES DOES GOOD THINGS.

IF YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND THIS, THEN YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF IF YOU ARE JUSTIFYING SOMETHING HORRIBLE IN YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR OR IN THE BEHAVIOR OF THOSE YOU CARE ABOUT. IT IS NOT NORMAL OR SANE TO SAY THAT AN EVIL, MASS-MURDERING RAPIST IS A GOOD GUY BECAUSE HE IS NICE TO HIS FAMILY.

Sorry about the caps, but I feel it must be emphasized.

[Jay R]

It's worth pointing out that on this continent, until the OotS and Xykon got interested in the desert, Tarquin was the main villain, so all his genre-savvy actions based on that idea were working. The only problem is that he doesn't know that there is a bigger story going on now, and he's now a small character on a bigger stage.

[Boring McReader]

You're absolutely wrong here. For example, there are plenty of cases where children had no idea that their parents had committed atrocities or had helped commit atrocities. The fact of the matter is that, yes, Virginia, people can and do do horrible things and otherwise come across as decent people to those who don't know about their actions. It's astounding that you think otherwise.

You make a good point, but the character we've seen in the comic hasn't contradicted himself. He's genial and forgiving when it suits him, and selfish and controlling the rest of the time. He justifies his acts as moving beyond mere morality, but few would say he acts with utility for the benefit of others. When something becomes more important to him then sentiment, he acts without mercy. You're always at risk dealing with him, no matter how he's behaving at any given moment.

Your comment reminds me of Chinatown. Right up to the end, the villain is able to wear his respectable citizen persona with ease, even though his final few minutes on screen are more monstrous than all his previous despicable acts combined.

Real life bad guys don't always lose control of their facade or inflict suffering on everyone around them. On the other hand, there's always the question of who they are deep down. If someone they care about finds out they have slaves in their basement, do they keep up their facade, or act without mercy to keep the secret safe? If you give a murderer the keys to a kingdom, is he more concerned with keeping his behavior secret, or forcing his subjects to act like they believe he's a good guy?

The "Family Secrets" trials got a lot of attention for how ruthlessly outwardly civil mobsters treated their closest family members and friends. With enough pressure, genial relationships can become him-or-me life-and-death struggles. Maybe the question here is whether it matters how you behave in one area of your life if you're enough of a monster in the rest. Tarquin is a threat to everyone who comes into contact with him, no matter how ordinary he behaves when it suits him. He hasn't thrown away all of his old personality in the last few pages; he's angry and frustrated with Elan, so his evil control freak behavior is at its peak. Give him his way in the battle on the Mechane, and he'll no doubt go back to his laid-back in-control persona in a very short time. He's casually cruel at all times, but he's not a raging emotional beast until something really sets him off. He's still a deeply rotten, evil character underneath.