What are the names of the unnamed members of the Tarquin's Group?

[dancrilis]

Julia Greenhilt.

Unless you just assume that True Neutrality is a phase that all teenagers go through. Which wouldn't surprise me, honestly.

Fair.

But assuming that this Timeline is correct Eugene was 65 when Julia was born (and as Sara died a year after him she was presumedly a similiar age), it is the kindof age where they may not really have been overly involved in raising her compared to her her hanging out with her friends and there younger parents - we don't know much about her life.

First thought that comes to mind: Ian Starshine is CN, Haley Starshine is CG.

Again fair enough (but what was her mother? - and was her father always CN people can change after all).

Oh it'd be in the realm of possibility, sure. But like Kish was getting at, portraying or referencing a healthy relationship with Laurin would undercut the Giant's point that you can't do the kinds of evil things Tarquin does all the time and just turn it off like a switch whenever it'd be convenient; so we're almost certainly not going to see such a relationship (or at least not one that lasts through the span of an entire prequel story)....And if we're not going to get any indication of it, would there really be a point in establishing it exists? There may well be wide-spanning story reasons to justify it, or maybe I just haven't been able to imagine a suitable explanation; that's why I rated it at "somewhat below negligible" rather than "nil". But placing any expectations on it seems...unwise.

I don't know I think it re-enforce the Giant's point 'that you can't do the kinds of evil things Tarquin does all the time and just turn it off like a switch whenever it'd be convenient' if you are evil and raise your children 'well' chances they will also be evil, Laurin could have made jokes about harsh treatment of slave for example while referening her 'Interior Designer' job and as such Hannah would have carried that to her plumbing job - i.e she might never have switched her evil off no reason she would need to around her daughter.
But who knows - I suspect that if Laurin and Hannah were shown to have a positive relationship that Hannah would also be shown to be Evil I will grant (or at least edging to the south of neutral).

Anyway, if I were to put down some idea fragments for a prequel story in the vicinity of the Vector Legion....Probably center it on Nale and whatever happened to trigger his hatred of Malack. Bonus points if that "whatever" happens to involve people Nale knew in life before they became Malack's "children". Extra bonus points if the story out goes as far as Nale killing Malack's children. Super extra bonus points if Tarquin's only a cameo character.

I could see that, but I don't think that Nale would be a good candidate - it might result in him being overly sympathetic or fall flat as he is just overly unpleasant as a kid.
A better character might actually be Hannah - she might be older than Nale and we can see some of Elan's mother through her eyes, and get to know about the formation of the Linear Guild and see the Vector Legion through the eyes of neither, she could be Good (a rebel who hides her activities from her mother) or any other alignment but the focus would be on how an outsider sees the two groups.
We can see about Nale's grudge with Malack etc without either of them being the focus.

[Sir_Norbert]

But assuming that this Timeline is correct Eugene was 65 when Julia was born (and as Sara died a year after him she was presumedly a similiar age)

Sara was probably a lot younger than her husband. In Roy's afterlife she refers to herself as "the nineteen-year-old looker who never even heard the name Eugene Greenhilt", suggesting it was at that age that she met him, and this is supported by how she looks in the flashback in Start of Darkness.

[Jasdoif]

Again fair enough (but what was her mother? - and was her father always CN people can change after all).

Haley's mother died while she was still young. And "people can change" applies at least as much to Haley as it does to Ian, so there's a lot of muddled confusion down that route....

I could see that, but I don't think that Nale would be a good candidate - it might result in him being overly sympathetic or fall flat as he is just overly unpleasant as a kid.
A better character might actually be Hannah - she might be older than Nale and we can see some of Elan's mother through her eyes, and get to know about the formation of the Linear Guild and see the Vector Legion through the eyes of neither, she could be Good (a rebel who hides her activities from her mother) or any other alignment but the focus would be on how an outsider sees the two groups.
We can see about Nale's grudge with Malack etc without either of them being the focus.

Hannah could be a great main character for a disconnected side story in the setting, but not for a prequel.

She'd be easy to write, sure; she's barely been mentioned, so there are extremely few constraints on her characterization to worry about. On the other hand, constraints are what makes a character noteworthy, so she'd need to be characterized to the point of being a developed (and hopefully interesting) character before she could do a good job as a main character. And with all that would entail, it'd be overly time-and-effort-intensive to not make her central to the story. Which, with a prequel, would have her be bystanding events leading up to other events established in the main comic; and then there's all the questions of why she's everywhere but we hadn't even heard of her from any of the people who should really have noticed where she was all that time. It'd be doable, sure, but it seems like more of a challenge than it's really worth.

If you wanted to go the third-party-observer route, Kilkil would be a better choice. Kilkil's already established in the main story, wouldn't at all be surprising to be there when events unfold, and doesn't have the personal power it'd take to compete with any of the bigger characters. And as an added bonus, any of the partial results of the attempts to characterize or give spotlight moments to Kilkil could be recycled (we are operating on the assumption the Giant is still the prequel writer, right?).


But personally, I think the drama between Nale and Malack is the richest area to explore, so doubling down on it and putting it (and them) on the center stage is the way to go. In the main comic, we have Nale killing Malack, because Malack wanted to kill Nale, because Nale killed Malack's children, because of something Nale decided when he was nine years old. And we also know with fair certainty that Nale killed Malack's children two years ago, which "happens" to be around the same time that Nale attempted his coup against the Vector Legion.

So potentially...one scene could set up Malack returning Nale's hatred, the beginning of the Linear Guild as an independent entity, all the drama the splintering entails on either side, and the sequence of events that led the Linear Guild to Xykon's employ all the way back in the Dungeon of Dorukan. It'd take a lot of setup to get all that going, but the payoff...oh that'd be good stuff. Not to say you couldn't do the same with an external POV, but drama is at its strongest when it's close up, when the depiction is right there with the character(s) involved. Doing that without using the perspective of Nale or Malack (preferably both) weakens the delivery, and that's beneficial with a big confrontation scene.

I suppose Nale coming off too sympathetically might be a risk, but not moreso than anything else involving Nale on the page does. If nothing else, Nale was explicitly and deliberately made unaware that he even had a brother, much less a twin. His string of behavior towards Elan and by extension the Order of the Stick, that's driven many of the comic's arcs, can't have anything to do with what happened over on the Western continent. That's all on Nale, and anyone who isn't swayed by that is unlikely to be influenced by such a prequel story anyway.

[Mightymosy]

[...]
Oh wait, I hear you say. We know that Tarquin was their leader, because he said so in #758. Ha! Well, Tarquin (who we know is delusionally thinking the story revolves around him!) states that "in fact, he was the leader as Elan is the leader of the OotS". Then, the story shows that Tarquin doesn't have any authority whatsoever over his fellow Legioneers - aside from favors. Malack, Laurin and Miron are treating him as a guy who has weird ideas regularly and are calling out his shenanigans.
[...]

Again with the delusions thing?

If you read 0758 carefully you will note that Tarquin says "I was the leader".
Then he explains how he gathered his old team around him and made his plan for ruling the continent together.
He speaks that everyone is ruled by the same six people. Later he mentions his team as "partners".

Can you point me to a panel where Tarquin says that he considers himself the leader of the current arrangement? I might have missed that one.

I read the comic as there being no current "leader" among this team. That's why, when someonewants something of no benefit for the others, they have to rely on favours.


Tarquin is wrong about Elan, but this is not delusional. This is "being wrong on account of imperfect information and a wish that makes him interprete the information he has in a certain way."

Once he gathers enough information that he can't deny anymore that Roy is the actual leader of OotS, he tries everything he has at his disposal to change the facts presented to him by trying to kill Roy.

That is evil, but practical, logical thinking in regards to what Tarquin wants to achieve, not delusional.

If he had managed to kill Roy, Durkula, Belkar (and V, unknown to him at this point), what do you think would have happened? Elan would be main protagonist hero. Or Haley. Or O-Chul? We don't know what would have happened because the story was not written that way. But from a logical perspective based on actual comic panels, I fail to see the delusions.

[Kish]

Aside from the fact that the Order has an official second-in-command who Elan has consistently deferred to in terms of leadership and who is still alive in your hypothetical, when Elan was separated from both Roy and Haley, and Durkon and Vaarsuvius were blatantly not stepping up to lead, what did he do? He attached himself as a follower to Hinjo.

Elan has no desire to lead. At all. If the Order got slaughtered except for him, and if he decided next to write off the dead and continue to pursue Xykon (or Tarquin, for that matter), he would look for a group that was between adventures and attempt to attach himself to them in a supporting role. Herald of Sir Francois, member of the Order of the Stick, or Hinjo's self-appointed bodyguard, he, alone of the Order, has never been independent. And anyway Tarquin wasn't even trying to kill all the Order until they were aboard the Mechane; during the dinosaur chase he was trying to kill Roy only, assuming that something about Roy must be suppressing Elan's otherwise-automatic leadership abilities--as backwards to actual reality as he could get.

[Mightymosy]

Aside from the fact that the Order has an official second-in-command who Elan has consistently deferred to in terms of leadership and who is still alive in your hypothetical, when Elan was separated from both Roy and Haley, and Durkon and Vaarsuvius were blatantly not stepping up to lead, what did he do? He attached himself as a follower to Hinjo.

Elan has no desire to lead. At all. If the Order got slaughtered except for him, and if he decided next to write off the dead and continue to pursue Xykon (or Tarquin, for that matter), he would look for a group that was between adventures and attempt to attach himself to them in a supporting role. Herald of Sir Francois, member of the Order of the Stick, or Hinjo's self-appointed bodyguard, he, alone of the Order, has never been independent. And anyway Tarquin wasn't even trying to kill all the Order until they were aboard the Mechane; during the dinosaur chase he was trying to kill Roy only, assuming that something about Roy must be suppressing Elan's otherwise-automatic leadership abilities--as backwards to actual reality as he could get.

Sure Elan doesn't want to, and probably never will become main protagonist of his own decision. The whole point is that Tarquin tries to force him to, no matter what.
I am not saying it will be easy, or work at all, I am saying that I am missing the delusional part of this.

Keep also in mind that in one of the finest strips in the series, 594, Elan came damn close to main protagonist material. How so? He was in a position where he had to play hero because he was the one most capable of. Elan is undenieably capable of being a hero, arguably moreso than any other character in the comic because he has such a pure good-willed heard, he just needs a little prodding here and there. He doesn't want to be main spotlight hero, and that's where Tarquin tries to force him to do things the way Tarquin imagines them to be best.

Scroll two strips later, to 596: Elan even takes on the role Roy usually takes (who is gone, just as Tarquin tries him to make) by showing fellow party members how they are wrong in their doings, even with using sarcastics, another pet behavior of Roy's.

Bottom line: I can't approve of Tarquin's goals, but his methods don't seem to hint at delusions for me.

[Kish]

*looks up the two strips in question*

...I'm not going to "keep in mind" anything of the sort. Elan is Elan, and then Elan is more Elan. He defers how to deal with Kubota to Hinjo until Vaarsuvius makes killing Kubota a fait accompli, then he defers how to deal with Kubota to Vaarsuvius until Vaarsuvius spells out that they didn't kill Kubota for anything but their personal convenience; the strips you cite feature Elan's ongoing facility at avoiding leadership (and also him being able to point out "water is somewhat damp" when Vaarsuvius acts more evil than Belkar does on most days, which you're free to take as showing amazing leadership abilities--despite the fact that Vaarsuvius responded with death threats followed by leaving, not with "oh gee I'd better change"--but I won't be joining you there).

Also, at the risk of being overly blunt, I think Tarquin being a quasi-delusional control freak who needs to be reined in by his allies half the time is both abundantly obvious from the comic and (in those words) confirmed by Word of the Author, and your posts on the subject strike me as dodging the evidence in a way comparable to Elan's dodging of authority. When you acknowledge that Tarquin didn't get some of what he wanted (ignoring other things he wanted that he didn't get) and freaked out about his failure to control Elan, you effectively handwave the fact that he has any personality at all away and say "but he's still in a position of power!" You ask a question to which the obvious answer was "he would have immediately started playing second fiddle to Haley," and ignore that answer because it's not what you and Tarquin both wanted. Fine. Yes, he's a borderline-epic or low-epic character and, as such, will be in a position of power until he's dead. If you want to define that as him winning, go ahead. But yes, other people on this board will continue to observe that Tarquin's delusions are delusions. Get used to it.

[Mightymosy]

*looks up the two strips in question*

...I'm not going to "keep in mind" anything of the sort. Elan is Elan, and then Elan is more Elan. He defers how to deal with Kubota to Hinjo until Vaarsuvius makes killing Kubota a fait accompli, then he defers how to deal with Kubota to Vaarsuvius until Vaarsuvius spells out that they didn't kill Kubota for anything but their personal convenience; the strips you cite feature Elan's ongoing facility at avoiding leadership (and also him being able to point out "water is somewhat damp" when Vaarsuvius acts more evil than Belkar does on most days, which you're free to take as showing amazing leadership abilities--despite the fact that Vaarsuvius responded with death threats followed by leaving, not with "oh gee I'd better change"--but I won't be joining you there).

Also, at the risk of being overly blunt, I think Tarquin being a quasi-delusional control freak who needs to be reined in by his allies half the time is both abundantly obvious from the comic and (in those words) confirmed by Word of the Author, and your posts on the subject strike me as dodging the evidence in a way comparable to Elan's dodging of authority. When you acknowledge that Tarquin didn't get some of what he wanted (ignoring other things he wanted that he didn't get) and freaked out about his failure to control Elan, you effectively handwave the fact that he has any personality at all away and say "but he's still in a position of power!" You ask a question to which the obvious answer was "he would have immediately started playing second fiddle to Haley," and reject that answer because it's not what you and Tarquin both wanted. Fine. Yes, he's a borderline-epic or low-epic character and, as such, will be in a position of power until he's dead. If you want to define that as him winning, go ahead. But yes, other people on this board will continue to observe that Tarquin's delusions are delusions. Get used to it.

Maybe our definitions on "delusional" don't match?

For me it means "believing in something in a way that is contrary and strictly incompatible with objective facts that (should be) obvious to the person in question".

For me it does not mean "wanting something that at the moment isn't true, and is hard, maybe even impossible to achieve, and try your best to get it regardless.

Pigs fly.
-> delusional

Pigs are supposed to be able to fly, so I will spend a decade in the lab until I invent the flying pig (a.k.a. the Porcothopteros).
-> crazy

[Kish]

I think it's more that you don't look at the second person's beliefs.

i.e., the second person's actions clearly imply "I have the ability to create a flying pig." That's a delusion (I presume). They also include the inaccurate statement "Pigs are supposed to be able to fly."

Even there, though, Tarquin is more like the first one. He doesn't think the universe should revolve around him, so he'll make it do so--he thinks the universe already revolves around him. He's not looking for a way to destroy Xykon and take his place as main villain of the story; he's filing everything he hears about Xykon under "sub-boss Zyklon who will be crushed by the hero of the story on his way to throwing down with me," unread.

[Mightymosy]

I think it's more that you don't look at the second person's beliefs.

i.e., the second person's actions clearly imply "I have the ability to create a flying pig." That's a delusion (I presume). They also include the inaccurate statement "Pigs are supposed to be able to fly."

Even there, though, Tarquin is more like the first one. He doesn't think the universe should revolve around him, so he'll make it do so--he thinks the universe already revolves around him. He's not looking for a way to destroy Xykon and take his place as main villain of the story; he's filing everything he hears about Xykon under "sub-boss Zyklon who will be crushed by the hero of the story on his way to throwing down with me," unread.

Considering the universe alreay revolves around Tarquin, why would he feel the need then to kill Roy, or rather the entire rest, including second-in-command Haley later?

He wants to make sure Elan plays center stage hero, and to fortify his position as main antagonist on the way. Sure, he is probably wrong about not being the actual main antagonist - as long as we still believe that would be Xykon, but are we even sure about that? - but being wrong is hardly sufficient for being delusional. If Tarquin had evidence that his idea (and I always got the impression that it was more of a plan than a solidified already in place world view) was wrong, if he had seen Xykon and Xykon had a nameplate that read "Main Villain by authors choice - don't interfer with this story's structure because it won't work", that would be one thing. But from his twisted point of view?


At first Tarquin believes Elan is the leader of OotS because he projects his own hopes into imperfect information and doesn't do enough to check whether such believe is actually true.
Then later, maybe being alerted by Elan's childish/stupid behavior, he decides he wants to test his son in battle, and - correctly - identifies Elan only taking a support role.
He then tells Elan that he will do everything he can do force Elan into main protagonist position.
I don't know, but for me this reads as if Tarquin is well aware that he is doing something against Elan's will, which is why he is getting angrier and angrier and finally breaks down when Elan gives him the stingy "You will survive but you are not the main antagonist" line.

[Kish]

Okay, dude? Your goalposts keep jumping around. It's about not achieving his goals, until you can't say he achieved any of his goals and suddenly it's about being powerful. It's about failing to recognize reality, until he fails to recognize reality and suddenly it's about making efforts to change things rather than sitting on his butt. What would it take for you to agree that Tarquin is delusional? If that's "nothing," then you should stop complaining that people talk about him being delusional without having given it to you. (You should anyway, but you really should in that case.)

[Ruck]

Continuing to ask me why I think "comparably evil to Tarquin" is incompatible with "a healthy, positive relationship" looks to me like looking at that Rich quote and then saying you haven't seen it.

Also, while I wouldn't say Redcloak is as evil as Tarquin by a distance,

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

he absolutely had a toxic relationship with his brother--fatally toxic, in the end. If Laurin acts loving toward Hannah for much of the book and kills her near the end*, and you then claim that proves that I was wrong rather than that I was right, we're going to continue to have a fundamental disagreement.

*Setting aside the logistical unlikelihood of someone who was alive at some point in the modern timeline dying in a prequel.

No, I would agree with you in that case. However, I think with the evidence at hand, Laurin is genuinely trying to do the best she can for Hannah. Whereas you could never say that regarding Tarquin and his sons.

All spoilers are for Start of Darkness.

Spoiler

Show

Had Xykon never shown up in the Right Eye's villiage within his lifetime - he and Redcloak would likely have been grand.

So what? If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Spoiler

Show

What resulted in harm harmful was that Redcloak choose the Goblin people over his brother - but Redcloak would make that call seemingly in any situation no matter who got hurt including himself (or the Goblin people for that matter).

Spoiler

Show

Let's not conflate "the Goblin people" with "The Plan," and more specifically, "Xykon as a partner in The Plan." Just look how you phrase it-- "Choosing the Goblin people no matter if the Goblin people get hurt" doesn't make sense.

Redcloak chose to keep Xykon as a partner over his own brother. And that's exactly what makes their relationship toxic.

[Onyavar]

Maybe our definitions on "delusional" don't match?

That's most probably it. Anyway, Tarquin isn't completely delusional in the meaning of "borderline crazy fool", he just has the trait to overestimate his role in the story, and he sticks to his own narrative interpretation no matter what.

If you read my post again, I paraphrased what Tarquin said. Now quoting:

[...]Malack and I were members of an adventuring party back in the day. I was the leader, in fact, as you are the leader of your little band.

I'm reading it with a lot of salt.
- This statement may be correct: Tarquin really was their leader all the time back then. (I guess that most readers took it as face value)
- This statement may be leaving things out: Tarquin was really their leader, until someone else took command... (T left important things out in his previous origin story, too. There is a heap of backstory we don't know yet.)
- The statement may be an intentional twist of logic "I was their leader as much as you are the leader in your group" (unlikely, because he really believes Elan to be the leader - but then, even probable, because Elan also tricked himself into not to perceiving obvious things. Nale called it willful ignorance)
- The statement may be an intentionally lie or exaggeration "Oh, he is the leader of his group... I better tell him his old man was a leader, too!"
- The statement may be wrong because Tarquin is REALLY delusional, thinking today that he was the leader back then when he really wasn't.
- There may be other possibilities.

My money is on options 2 to 4: I'm just doubting that he really was the long-time leader of his own group.

IF that assumption is correct, THEN I would assume SPG was the actual leader, because he is the only person who isn't characterized so far. It also makes Tarquin the "narrative fool" in his group. It then makes sense that four of Tarquins companions were having doubtful expressions, until he obviously convinced them of his idea.

At some point, I'm expecting more or less this scene: SPG walks in and is angry: "Tarquin, Laurin just told me about Malack. Your stupid offspring killed him, and we have no longer clerical assistance. Even worse, there is a huge rift in the Barren Desert, some guy called Starshine is leading a rebellion and I even got intel from the IFCC about the Western Gods deciding that the world is going to end! ... So much about your great retirement plan, Tarquin. We have gone soft. Now screw this entire sandpit continent! I'm in charge again, let's wormgate to the North Pole!"

[woweedd]

That's most probably it. Anyway, Tarquin isn't completely delusional in the meaning of "borderline crazy fool", he just has the trait to overestimate his role in the story, and he sticks to his own narrative interpretation no matter what.

If you read my post again, I paraphrased what Tarquin said. Now quoting:

I'm reading it with a lot of salt.
- This statement may be correct: Tarquin really was their leader all the time back then. (I guess that most readers took it as face value)
- This statement may be leaving things out: Tarquin was really their leader, until someone else took command... (T left important things out in his previous origin story, too. There is a heap of backstory we don't know yet.)
- The statement may be an intentional twist of logic "I was their leader as much as you are the leader in your group" (unlikely, because he really believes Elan to be the leader - but then, even probable, because Elan also tricked himself into not to perceiving obvious things. Nale called it willful ignorance)
- The statement may be an intentionally lie or exaggeration "Oh, he is the leader of his group... I better tell him his old man was a leader, too!"
- The statement may be wrong because Tarquin is REALLY delusional, thinking today that he was the leader back then when he really wasn't.
- There may be other possibilities.

My money is on options 2 to 4: I'm just doubting that he really was the long-time leader of his own group.

IF that assumption is correct, THEN I would assume SPG was the actual leader, because he is the only person who isn't characterized so far. It also makes Tarquin the "narrative fool" in his group. It then makes sense that four of Tarquins companions were having doubtful expressions, until he obviously convinced them of his idea.

At some point, I'm expecting more or less this scene: SPG walks in and is angry: "Tarquin, Laurin just told me about Malack. Your stupid offspring killed him, and we have no longer clerical assistance. Even worse, there is a huge rift in the Barren Desert, some guy called Starshine is leading a rebellion and I even got intel from the IFCC about the Western Gods deciding that the world is going to end! ... So much about your great retirement plan, Tarquin. We have gone soft. Now screw this entire sandpit continent! I'm in charge again, let's wormgate to the North Pole!"

(Emphasis mine.)
That sounds cool but i'd prefer to have Tarquin not even be involved with the Vector Legion if/when they show up again. Maybe a brief mention by SPG of him having died at the hands of a certain Lizardfolk off-panel and a short aside that he's glad to be rid of him after he came up with this harebrained scheme. What more ironic end for a villain who wanted to be a legend then to die off-screen at the hands of a side-character?

[dancrilis]

[spoiler]Let's not conflate "the Goblin people" with "The Plan," and more specifically, "Xykon as a partner in The Plan." Just look how you phrase it-- "Choosing the Goblin people no matter if the Goblin people get hurt" doesn't make sense.

Spoiler

Show

Welcome to what might be the crucial issue with Redcloak.
Redcloak will allow the souls of every goblin living to be destroyed if he thinks it will secure the future he dreams of for goblins not yet in existance.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak chose to keep Xykon as a partner over his own brother. And that's exactly what makes their relationship toxic.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak and Xykon have a toxic relationship - it is a relationship that makes both of them worse people (so do Xykon relationship with most people, Right Eye and Tsukiko spring to mind).

Redcloak and Right Eyes relationship did not make either of them worse people.

Now you can define a toxic relationship differently sure but for the hell of it I will try to define it in DnD terms:
Toxic Relationship: A relationship that pushes those in it towards the Evil end of the alignment spectrum without a loyal friendship forming.

Nothing against Evil of course - but I think if you are being pushed to it without forming bonds of loyalty to those with you on the journey there is likely something wrong and it will likely end badly for you.

[Ruck]

Spoilers still for SoD.

Spoiler

Show

Welcome to what might be the crucial issue with Redcloak.
Redcloak will allow the souls of every goblin living to be destroyed if he thinks it will secure the future he dreams of for goblins not yet in existance.

Yes, his commitment to The Plan at all costs is arguably his tragic flaw. No argument there.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak and Right Eyes relationship did not make either of them worse people.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak killed Right-Eye! I think that makes Redcloak a worse person and gives Right-Eye a much worse life by virtue of not having one anymore.

Now you can define a toxic relationship differently sure but for the hell of it I will try to define it in DnD terms:
Toxic Relationship: A relationship that pushes those in it towards the Evil end of the alignment spectrum without a loyal friendship forming.

"Toxic relationship" isn't a D&D concept. I think "toxic" is as simple as "unhealthy"; it's damaging in some way.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak made Right-Eye's life worse, and then ended it, due to his insistence on prioritizing The Plan and the alliance with Xykon above all else. That's toxic.

[DaggerPen]

I feel like the comparison of Laurin to Redcloak is probably quite spot on. We haven't seen a lot of Laurin or her background, but we get some heavy implications from her spiel to Vaarsuvius that she's from the Western Continent, and some implications from her conversation with Miron that she has a thing about trying to set up new massive water sources for her daughter, etc. ETA: Oh, and she refers to the Eastern Gods with stuff like "Ishtar's Crown..." as well, further indicating she's from that continent.

So, so far I'd definitely peg her as "ends justify the means, this is how I make life better for my daughter and for my home". (Though I could also easily see "I don't care a fig what happens to this cesspit once I'm gone and my family is taken care of," depending on how much she knew of Malack's plan for the empire once they were all gone.)

So I can definitely buy her as falling into many of the same downfalls that Redcloak does.

(Regarding toxic relationships, I feel like there's a disconnect here between people using 'toxic relationship' to mean 'at any representative snapshot in time, this relationship is awful and harmful to one or more participants' and people using it to mean 'though the earlier relationship seemed healthy and no one at the time was worse off for it, the eventual moral failures that brought it to a horrific end mark the entire relationship as toxic'. Did I sum that up right?)

[Sir_Norbert]

(Regarding toxic relationships, I feel like there's a disconnect here between people using 'toxic relationship' to mean 'at any representative snapshot in time, this relationship is awful and harmful to one or more participants' and people using it to mean 'though the earlier relationship seemed healthy and no one at the time was worse off for it, the eventual moral failures that brought it to a horrific end mark the entire relationship as toxic'. Did I sum that up right?)

Pretty much. I mean, according to Ruck, Redcloak's relationship with Right-Eye was "toxic" because he eventually chose Xykon over him. So I guess that if you ever have more than one relationship at the same time, all of them are toxic except for the one you would choose as your top priority should they ever come into conflict....?

[Ruck]

Pretty much. I mean, according to Ruck, Redcloak's relationship with Right-Eye was "toxic" because he eventually chose Xykon over him. So I guess that if you ever have more than one relationship at the same time, all of them are toxic except for the one you would choose as your top priority should they ever come into conflict....?

Don't deliberately misinterpret my position. When elements you introduce into a relationship you have with another person end up destroying that person's life and family, how is that not toxic? When you murder someone you have a relationship with, how is that not toxic?

(Regarding toxic relationships, I feel like there's a disconnect here between people using 'toxic relationship' to mean 'at any representative snapshot in time, this relationship is awful and harmful to one or more participants' and people using it to mean 'though the earlier relationship seemed healthy and no one at the time was worse off for it, the eventual moral failures that brought it to a horrific end mark the entire relationship as toxic'. Did I sum that up right?)

Yeah, using "is" can be tricky because it's not clear if it means "now and always and in history" or "proved to be in the end." I don't think Redcloak and Right-Eye's relationship was toxic from the start, but Redcloak's commitment to certain principles made it so, and that's why it ended the way it did.

[Kish]

Pretty much. I mean, according to Ruck, Redcloak's relationship with Right-Eye was "toxic" because he eventually chose Xykon over him. So I guess that if you ever have more than one relationship at the same time, all of them are toxic except for the one you would choose as your top priority should they ever come into conflict....?

Wow. That is some serious distortion you're doing there.

...I think I'll choose to be amused by the implication that Redcloak has a "healthy relationship" with Xykon.

(Regarding toxic relationships, I feel like there's a disconnect here between people using 'toxic relationship' to mean 'at any representative snapshot in time, this relationship is awful and harmful to one or more participants' and people using it to mean 'though the earlier relationship seemed healthy and no one at the time was worse off for it, the eventual moral failures that brought it to a horrific end mark the entire relationship as toxic'. Did I sum that up right?)

No--not for me, anyway. My reading of your description of the first version, is that if there are moments when the people involved are happy and loving, that's enough to certify the relationship as "non-toxic"--if one of the people in the relationship is abusive they must be constantly abusive, such that anyone could tell at a glance taken at the most positive moment of the relationship that the relationship is toxic. And the second version seems to take in every relationship that ends badly.

A "loved one" relationship that ends in one party murdering the other is really obviously toxic, though. And I am boggled that there are people who will contest that, much less strawman it like Sir_Norbert was willing to.

[Sir_Norbert]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I thought you were arguing for something different than what you were actually arguing, and I was wrong.

[DaggerPen]

No--not for me, anyway. My reading of your description of the first version, is that if there are moments when the people involved are happy and loving, that's enough to certify the relationship as "non-toxic"--if one of the people in the relationship is abusive they must be constantly abusive, such that anyone could tell at a glance taken at the most positive moment of the relationship that the relationship is toxic. And the second version seems to take in every relationship that ends badly.

A "loved one" relationship that ends in one party murdering the other is really obviously toxic, though. And I am boggled that there are people who will contest that, much less strawman it like Sir_Norbert was willing to.

To clarify, I'm not holding to either version as my own definition, just trying to understand what this argument is based on. But I would clarify that the phrase "representational snapshot" was intended to exclude the idea of "a relationship is only abusive if it is constantly abusive" while asking if the usage that one side was arguing was meant to define a distinction between "a relationship that decays over time" and "a relationship that was always rotten under the surface."

Basically, I understand that, obviously, any relationship that ends with one party killing the other is not really "healthy" as a whole, but it feels like the other part of the argument is holding that the interpretation they have of what you're saying is that there's no distinction between a relationship that decays over time and one that was always bad under the surface? I... think? I am really having trouble following this argument and it kind of seems like everyone's just talking around in circles. What's the crux of this disagreement? Is anyone actually claiming that Redcloak and his brother were not in an unhealthy relationship at the end, or is it an argument over "evil people cannot have healthy relationships ever" "well what about [SOD spoilers]?" "Yeah given other [SOD spoilers] I'm going to say that doesn't count" "Okay, but if they started out as healthy couldn't Laurin and her daughter be perfectly healthy at this time?" "But given how that relationship ended, their relationship would also have an inevitable unhealthy end, so it's not healthy", or?

[Kish]

hroþila seems to have ditched the thread (and, frankly, not offered much less horrendous than

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

saying that Redcloak having murdered his brother says nothing about their relationship

when they were here), so I'll clarify that Redcloak, for enough of Start of Darkness that Rich was willing to write Start of Darkness with him as its protagonist, was above the "Rich doesn't care to write this character as a protagonist" moral level of Xykon, Haerta, Ganonron, and Jephton. Empirically proven. Actually, it occurs to me that this is backwards. "Someone as evil as Tarquin cannot have a healthy relationship" doesn't mean "in any unhealthy relationship someone is as evil as Tarquin." What Redcloak

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

did with a desperate attempt to self-rationalize on his lips and briefly tried to defy Xykon after, Tarquin did with a condescending lecture and a dismissive shrug.

I wouldn't rule out a "this is how the token good member of the Vector Legion stopped being token good" plot, but I don't really expect it. Both because it would kind of be a retread, and because the person who seems most likely to fit the role of corrupter is Laurin herself. Tarquin generally enrages people when he tries to manipulate them. Malack seemed to believe in live and let die as long as someone was willing to extend the same courtesy to him and his continent-sized abattoir plans. Miron doesn't seem interested enough in morality to go out of his way to corrupt someone. Jacinda, on an admittedly minimal amount of evidence, looks more Axe Crazy than subtle and manipulative. And the

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

"you'll stick with me and commit any atrocity for me because you have neither a chance to survive if you defy me nor a chance to achieve your goals without me" brutal corruption approach taken by Xykon wouldn't work with people of close-to-equal power.

[Reddish Mage]

I recall reading in a forward to Bacon's scientific work that Queen Elizabeth's relationship with her favorite lover started going south when her lover started pressuring her to marry him and calling attention to their relationship and asserting authority in public. She had Francis Bacon kill him, then thought better of the whole thing, started missing her lover, and blamed Bacon for the whole fiasco.

Not sure how to measure how messed up that relationship is, but it sounds like the decision to kill wasn't fully considered.

[DaggerPen]

Thank you for clarifying. That was... not the position I thought was being asserted.

[Kish]

For my part, everything I posted regarding

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Redcloak's relationship with his brother was entirely reactive.

i.e., someone (hroþila) asserted that it was not toxic even though one of the people involved murdered the other one, and repeated that assertion when I went WTF at it. I am not inclined to take Redcloak's relationship with his brother as indicating anything at all about the hypothetical Linear Guild/Vector Legion prequel myself; I just extra specially don't agree that the list of things it could conceivably mean, whether about said prequel or anything else, include "evil people can have a nice healthy relationship like Redcloak's relationship with his murder victimbrother."