OOTS #1063 - The Discussion Thread

[dancrilis]

its not a mischaracterization, just the logical extension. Especially on a pirate ship, where the risk of injury or death is a basic fact of life. If Andi wasn't comfortable with that, she shouldn't have signed on to the crew of a pirate ship/

People often use 'logical extension' for when an statement is exaggerated for effect - the effect in question is often to make it easier to attack as logically unfeasible, that is mischaracterization.

You saying you 'don't like dwarves and think they offer nothing of value to society' does not mean that you 'don't like all dwarves' but it could be a logical extension, however saying that it is a logical extension to say you 'want all dwarves to die' could be formulated as a arguement but would likely be a mischaracterization.

On risk of injury and death I disagree - for example Andi and company here discuss finding a nice fat merchant blimp and presumedly as pirates they are engaged in ambushing slow moving ships at lower altitudes such as the one mentioned here.

When you are the ambusher against soft targets risk of death is likely lower than when you are ambushed by Giants - this is in fact the first time we have seen any member of the crew die (they did not when assaulting Azure city, or when Tarquin attacked).

When has the Order ever won a big battle without a turnaround?

This battle preceeding this (subject to you regarding it as a big battle).

[Keltest]

People often use 'logical extension' for when an statement is exaggerated for effect - the effect in question is often to make it easier to attack as logically unfeasible, that is mischaracterization.

You saying you 'don't like dwarves and think they offer nothing of value to society' does not mean that you 'don't like all dwarves' but it could be a logical extension, however saying that it is a logical extension to say you 'want all dwarves to die' could be formulated as a arguement but would likely be a mischaracterization.

On risk of injury and death I disagree - for example Andi and company here discuss finding a nice fat merchant blimp and presumedly as pirates they are engaged in ambushing slow moving ships at lower altitudes such as the one mentioned here.

When you are the ambusher against soft targets risk of death is likely lower than when you are ambushed by Giants - this is in fact the first time we have seen any member of the crew die (they did not when assaulting Azure city, or when Tarquin attacked).

Let me give you an example as to why your train of thought is dangerous and wrong for anybody on a ship, pirate or otherwise. Imagine, for a moment, that there is a ship navigating through an area known to have reefs. Its risky, but the captain knows how to navigate it safely and the crew has the skill to pull it off, having done so before. However, a new crew member does not know this, and only sees the captain sailing directly towards the reefs. In response, they KO the captain and tell the crew to turn... at which point they strike a reef and sink, because the crew member has no idea what theyre doing or how to navigate that area safely, and they just KOed the person who did.

It is the captain's job to know whats going on and to make the decisions. If you don't trust them to do that, the appropriate response is to leave the ship before a crisis happens, not attack them mid crisis and make things worse.

[nocoolnamejim]

One thing that I'd argue has gone well for the Order that wasn't mentioned is the fact that the world is still in existence.

Hel supposedly had the winning votes among the demigod tie-breaker locked up before this...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1012.html

And now she's had to move onto her backup plan. I call that a win for the Team Stick.

[HerbieRAI]

Since Bandana will most likely wake up from that hit, I wonder if she will kick Andi off the crew. It's not so much a "will Bandana want to" or "should Bandana do it", more of a "can she". Andi seems like the kind of engineer that would keep her knowledge of how the ship works to herself. So without Anid, Bandana won't be able to fly.

[nocoolnamejim]

Since Bandana will most likely wake up from that hit, I wonder if she will kick Andi off the crew. It's not so much a "will Bandana want to" or "should Bandana do it", more of a "can she". Andi seems like the kind of engineer that would keep her knowledge of how the ship works to herself. So without Anid, Bandana won't be able to fly.

That's a really good point.

[Keltest]

Since Bandana will most likely wake up from that hit, I wonder if she will kick Andi off the crew. It's not so much a "will Bandana want to" or "should Bandana do it", more of a "can she". Andi seems like the kind of engineer that would keep her knowledge of how the ship works to herself. So without Anid, Bandana won't be able to fly.

She will probably lock her in the brig, or a storage room converted into a brig, and let Julio deal with her.

[snowblizz]

That is a very good point.

In writing there has to be down times for people to catch their breath, absorb information, and avoid feeling rushed to the end, (paraphrasing a book Becoming Your Own Critique Partner), but none of that seems to be an issue for me in this case.

It's hard to nail down what I have issue with in terms of writing technique. I'll say that I'm definitely irritated by this subplot, and it seems be a feeling of "What, another problem? Does anyone do anything correctly in this world".

You might not simply like some of the characters or what's going on. I know parts of the comic has not appealed to me at the time I was reading it, though I'd be hard pressed now to point one of those out. The Giant has in his commentary pointed out how the episodic nature of the publishing doesn't always gel with the story pacing, e.g. Haley's loss of speech worked better in a book than stretched out in instalments online. The entire book of "Don't Split the Party" is a giant (no pun!) detour of misery and nothing can go right. The Giant points this out in the commentary and even even take a pot shot at it with the last minute problem of diamonds ably solved by Haley breaking the 4th wall (and that is still one of the most awesome things I hadn't realised before getting the books). The BritF was also a long downward spiral of "come on for the love of Thor how can it get any worse no...oh...OH NO!". Both seem less bad in the books when you can quickly read to the satifying conclusions.

Another common complaint is when ppl confused this for a story about how the lich Xykon was stopped from using the gates, and everything not forming a straight path the the lootboss and lvl up is "filler". I wasn't actually certain at first if this was where you were coming from. But Xykon, the Gates, and now the saving of the world is all just window dressing to the "character drama/comedy" of the OOTS. We only really care about Hel's plan because she's got Durkon and we want him back! After learning more about him as a character and seeing him grow preferrably.

I actually find this rather interesting since it showcases how the early OOTS would have looked if *they* were compared with a seasoned adventurer party. But I also look forward to the day we are allowed to measure the OOTS with the "gatebuilders" whose name I can't recall now.

But on the current trajectory, we're rapidly approaching the need for a deus-ex-machina to extricate the protagonists from an ambush by second-string allies of a secondary villain who isn't even the main Big Bad of the whole webcomic (i.e. Xykon).

Who says Xykon is the main Big Bad? Evil god compared to lazy sorceror? I'd bet on evil god. And wouldn't discount the Directors either. Don't make Tarquin's mistake and think you know what the story is and try and shoehorn everything into boxes that line up with that assumption. Not that'd I'd be disappointed if he were. If Hel being a second stringer is required to get Durkon back, so be it.

[dancrilis]

If you don't trust them to do that, the appropriate response is to leave the ship before a crisis happens, not attack them mid crisis and make things worse.

Agreed see here.

I will say in Bandana's defence (despite me thinking that she is inept as a captain) Andi should have taken a vacation from the ship in Tindertown if she was unable to follow Bandana as a captain (and if the ship couldn't function without Andi and they were all grounded so be it) - she should have known that adventurer transport would be hazardous and that Bandana might not be willing to follow reason (or at least what Andi viewed as the most reasonable course of action, if Bandana saw things differently or got caught up in the moment) ... but ah well.

To your other point Bandana is not an experienced captain and Andi is an experienced crew member - it is entirely possible that Andi is second in command on the ship, this is supported - weakly - here where she instructs the crew on how to behave. It is not unreasonable (but also not supported) to consider that she may not only have seen more of these scenarios than Bandana but is used to being in control when they go down (as Julio does heroic stuff and looks awesome).

We will see how it plays out but I think the Giant has a lot of room to:
1. Have Bandana be in the right.
2. Have Andi be in the right.
3. Have both Andi and Bandana to be at fault (with a wide variance on how has more fault or if it is equal).

Since Bandana will most likely wake up from that hit, I wonder if she will kick Andi off the crew. It's not so much a "will Bandana want to" or "should Bandana do it", more of a "can she". Andi seems like the kind of engineer that would keep her knowledge of how the ship works to herself. So without Anid, Bandana won't be able to fly.

I don't think that Andi would be irreplaceable (a loss yes and a dangerous loss at that), but others have assisted with repairs and so likely have at least some ranks in the craft/profession needed.

[nocoolnamejim]

Who says Xykon is the main Big Bad? Evil god compared to lazy sorceror? I'd bet on evil god. And wouldn't discount the Directors either. Don't make Tarquin's mistake and think you know what the story is and try and shoehorn everything into boxes that line up with that assumption. Not that'd I'd be disappointed if he were. If Hel being a second stringer is required to get Durkon back, so be it.

Wouldn't count out Redcloak ending up as the Big Bad.

[Kish]

Clearly Andi is the main villain of the comic. Pfft, goblins and undead.

(Would post a close-up of Andi's face in panel seven of #1062, but Rich objects to us altering his images.)

[Peelee]

This battle preceeding this (subject to you regarding it as a big battle).

It started with things going badly for the Order.

[dancrilis]

It started with things going badly for the Order.

Depends on how you define a battle - I would regard the Acid Splash's and Tarquin outside the pyramid as one battle and the battle within the pyramid as a seperate one, but I can grant that you could make a solid case for it being a continuation of the same battle after a brief respite.

[Doug Lampert]

As Elan said, they mostly run away or have mixed victories. Still as true now as it was then. If you want Salvatore-style "the mighty badasses tear through their enemies like mighty badasses," that's not a wrong thing to want in a story, but it's a strange thing to look for here, this far into this story. When has the Order ever won a big battle without a turnaround?

This battle preceeding this (subject to you regarding it as a big battle).

Come on, even Elan knew they couldn't have won that without an elaborate turn-around. Don't fall for Roy's lies.

[Quibblicious]

Wouldn't count out Redcloak ending up as the Big Bad.

Based upon his perfidious dealings to manipulate Xykon to do what RedCloak needs done for his mission, RedCloak is definitely the big bad guy.

Q

[Shining Wrath]

Ideally before they left port.
Bandana: <Details expectations for her time as Captain>
Andi: <Offers critiques, and what she expects from the Captain>
Bandana: <Counters and/or adopts critiques>
Andi: <If she still has issues that would prevent her serving well she should leave>
Bandana: <If she feels she cannot trust Andi based on her reaction she should ask her to leave - and demand it in the event that it is not complied with>

Bandana has been on board from childhood, and Andi for fifteen years (likely the same amount of time) it is possible that Andi used to babysit Bandana when her parents went on romantic shore leave - either of them should have been able to figure out if they could work together in the new structure fairly easily.
But neither sought the conversation.

But not sure if you mean in a more immediate sense to this specific giant attack (you also assume that Bandana could beat Andi in a fight - something I am dubious about given the additional 15~ years experience and associated levels that Andi might have gained).

When Bandana became Captain they were not in port. They were flying along and Julio departed on a flying carpet, and then Laurin ported Tarquin onto the deck and things got busy. How many members of the crew (there are apparently dozens) should Bandana have negotiated the terms of her captaincy with?

[GreatWyrmGold]

-snip-

It sounds like you're saying that Andi's duty, at least as perceived by her, is to stop the Mechane from getting hurt in the first place. If she thinks this, she is dead wrong. That's the captain's job, or perhaps the navigator's. It's that simple. The mechanic fixes stuff, the people in charge of the ship keep it out of harm's way.

That was characterised as 'anyone, at any time, can disobey any order they like' which is a mischaracterisation of my position.

Not by much. If you say people can ignore direct orders and assault their superior officers because they think what they're doing is in the ship's best interests, that's...exactly what we accused you of saying.
And don't say that only Andi's duties can be construed that way. Name one position with duties that don't ultimately amount to "do what's best for the ship and crew".

People often use 'logical extension' for when an statement is exaggerated for effect - the effect in question is often to make it easier to attack as logically unfeasible, that is mischaracterization.
You saying you 'don't like dwarves and think they offer nothing of value to society' does not mean that you 'don't like all dwarves' but it could be a logical extension, however saying that it is a logical extension to say you 'want all dwarves to die' could be formulated as a arguement but would likely be a mischaracterization.

I'm not sure how "People saying something obviously stupid can sound kinda like you" is supposed to imply "Your logic is faulty".

We only really care about Hel's plan because she's got Durkon and we want him back!

Well, and because if Hel's plan works, the world will end, all of the characters will be killed, and the story will be over.

When Bandana became Captain they were not in port. They were flying along and Julio departed on a flying carpet, and then Laurin ported Tarquin onto the deck and things got busy. How many members of the crew (there are apparently dozens) should Bandana have negotiated the terms of her captaincy with?

Under ideal circumstances, she should have talked about it with any crew members who had serious grievances.
Under realistic circumstances, they'd have to suck it up until they got a good chance to talk it over.

To put it another way, It is never a safe assumption that you know better than the captain. Ever. It is their job to know things, not yours.

Quoted for truth, as I do-eth.

[skim172]

Objectively, we can say Bandana's leadership has not been good because it led to her getting hit in the head with a wrench.

Objectively, we can say that Romulus Augustulus's leadership was not good because it lead to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I mean, I don't know if he could have done it any better or if any changes would've improved the situation. But the ideal outcome of his leadership would probably include not having your entire empire effectively collapse.
Objectively, we can say that Montezuma's leadership was not good because it lead to his empire being devastated by the Spanish. I mean, I don't know if he could have done it any better or if any changes would've improved the situation. But the ideal outcome of his leadership would probably include not being invaded by a technologically superior nation.
Objectively, we can say that Abraham Lincoln's leadership was not good because it lead to the Civil War. I mean, I don't know if he could have done it any better or if any changes would've improved the situation. But the ideal outcome of his leadership would probably include not having the nation torn asunder, disrupting the economy of half the country.
"Bandana did poorly. There probably wasn't anything she could do about it, but she still did poorly." Not a logical argument.

Well, yeah.

Let me clarify - I shouldn't have said good or bad. What I meant "having a positive outcome" versus "having a negative outcome". So what I meant was Bandana's leadership has arrived at a negative outcome. Not that her leadership was "poor" - just that the outcome is not desirable. The result was contrary to Bandana's desired and best interests.

"Bandana got wrenched in the head. She didn't want to get wrenched in the head. Therefore, her time as a leader (in this specific area of Andi-Bandi relations) has gone badly."

I guess it's not purely objective - I did say "led to" in my original post. But I also thought I made pretty clear in the rest of my post that I wasn't saying Bandanna was "at fault".

Applied to your other examples - I don't think Romulus Augustus, Montezuma, or Lincoln could've done much in their leadership roles to avoid the outcome. So I wouldn't say "led to".

[Jasdoif]

People often use 'logical extension' for when an statement is exaggerated for effect - the effect in question is often to make it easier to attack as logically unfeasible, that is mischaracterization.

Since we're here, I'm a little confused: what did you mean when you said "That is for the rest of the crew to decide"?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Applied to your other examples - I don't think Romulus Augustus, Montezuma, or Lincoln could've done much in their leadership roles to avoid the outcome. So I wouldn't say "led to".

Lincoln could have not run (the Civil War was built on pre-existing tensions, but could easily have been delayed if he hadn't been elected President). Montezuma could have offered to be a Spanish subject. Romulus...I'd need to do a lot more research, but I could probably find something that would let him dump that problem on the next emperor's lap or otherwise avoid it.
It would, of course, not be reasonable to expect them to have done so. But that was kind of my intended point. I don't think Bandana could have been expected to do anything to prevent the mutiny.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Montezuma and his predecessors spent generations building bad blood between themselves and their subjects. Once the Spanish gave the situation a push by arriving, the Aztecs were done for.

The Civil War was also already running before Lincoln took office. It's just that for some reason people decided that a warning shot towards Fort Sumter was the start rather than one of a half-dozen infantry fights.

By the time Romulus Augustulus was on the throne, the Western Emperors were little more than puppets to whichever barbarian chief was head general. Similar events ended several Dynasties in Egypt and Mesopotamia, plus there was this guy named Charles Martel in France a few centuries later.

[8BitNinja]

Based upon his perfidious dealings to manipulate Xykon to do what RedCloak needs done for his mission, RedCloak is definitely the big bad guy.

Q

Because of you, I had to look up the definition of perfidious.

Thanks

[dancrilis]

Come on, even Elan knew they couldn't have won that without an elaborate turn-around. Don't fall for Roy's lies.

I am assuming this is meant in jest in which case is half-way to my assumption (which is likely false) of Kish's point.

When Bandana became Captain they were not in port. They were flying along and Julio departed on a flying carpet, and then Laurin ported Tarquin onto the deck and things got busy. How many members of the crew (there are apparently dozens) should Bandana have negotiated the terms of her captaincy with?

Your timeline is wrong.

It sounds like you're saying that Andi's duty, at least as perceived by her, is to stop the Mechane from getting hurt in the first place. If she thinks this, she is dead wrong. That's the captain's job, or perhaps the navigator's. It's that simple. The mechanic fixes stuff, the people in charge of the ship keep it out of harm's way.

Sounds like?
My intention was crew first (irrespective of the ship).

But fine find me a quote from me saying that...

...anyone, at any time, can disobey any order they like...

... and we can discuss it.

[Knaight]

Unfortunately, removing Andi from the ship is not a feasible solution, as Bandana is only acting captain. She cant really make any major modifications to the crew without extenuating circumstances (like Andi's assault right here). Even throwing Andi in the brig and/or relieving her of her duties for the duration of her captaincy has the potential to be problematic, since Bandana and Andi will both be on the ship and working together when Scoundrel returns.

There's also the matter of how the ship needs an engineer. It's a necessary job at the best of times, and given that the ship has been getting beat on pretty heavily ever since it started transporting the order it needs one more than ever. There may very well be no good option here - there's Andi, who just proved what a liability there is, and then there's probably not having an adequate engineer at all. The crew of the Mechane are in over their head - morale has been crumbling (this is one example, but there was also the shock of the crew at several of their members being nochalantly bisected by the giants, there was the general panic in the storm), their captain picked now to leave, and their mission changed from being a thorn in the side of various comparatively minor villains to opposing several gods and some of their highly competent minions. Something was bound to snap.

[Xyril]

This fight on the ship has sort of hurt my ability to suspend reality (or fantasy reality) for this comic. This is because the likelihood of a:

1. Group of people trying to save the world being attacked by
2. Enemies who can attack an airship while with
3. A crew of people who go into full on mutiny at this particular stressful situation

is remote.

Respectfully, it doesn't require any suspension of disbelief at all.

First, 1) yes, the probability of any particular group of people trying to save the world is remote. It becomes less remote when you realize that the whole reason this story is being told is the fact that they're trying to save the world. In other words, the chances of Steve winning the lottery is almost zero; the chances that somebody wins the lottery, and someone then finds him and tells his story, is much higher.

2) It is now known that our adventurers are trying to save the world. Knowing only that, the likelihood of someone trying to stop them is probably non-zero. But the story has established other relevant conditions. A) Powerful forces--including a deity, no less--have reason to stop them. B) Those powerful forces include a spy who was until recently among the heroes. That spy was privy to the heroes plans and an accounting of the heroes' available resources. C) The powerful forces have a specific plan to achieve their goals, they know precisely where the heroes have to be to thwart their plan, and roughly how long the heroes have to do so before it is too late. D) They likely have enough knowledge of the terrain that, combined with the spy's inside information, they can reasonably predict the most likely paths by which the heroes will attempt to intervene. E) Did I mention the powerful forces include a goddess?

If Hel knows that the Order's only chance to stop her is to reach the dwarven lands as soon as possible, and that they lost their means of mass teleportation and have an airship as the fastest available mode of transport, then is it that hard to believe that she might use her vast divine power to hire, bribe, cajole, manipulate, or simply order forces able to attack an airship to block the fastest airship routes?

3) First, it wasn't a full mutiny. It was a one-woman mutiny. Second, this crew isn't the same as the crew that's been together for probably years off-strip; it's a crew with a new Captain. Best I can remember, they've only had two prior actions under Bandanna. In the lightning strike, the Order really took the lead in neutralizing the danger, so Andi didn't really have a clear path of self-preservation via self-serving revolt. In the vampire attack, I don't think the ship or the crew was ever really involved--the target was the magical item, and then the Pet Avengers once they tried to intervene. So this battle is really the first situation in which the ship and crew were in danger, in a combat situation where Bandanna's leadership was relevant to the outcome. What is the likelihood that a mutiny happens to occur the first time this unprecedented situation occurs? Not as remote as you seem to believe.

[Xyril]

The Civil War was also already running before Lincoln took office. It's just that for some reason people decided that a warning shot towards Fort Sumter was the start rather than one of a half-dozen infantry fights.

That reason would be that prior to the election of Lincoln, zero states had officially seceded from the Union, the Confederate States had not formed, and the official armed forces of a self-styled new nation hadn't laid siege against a military installation of the existing nation.

Previous fighting occurred between armed pro-slavery and anti-slavery (sorry, pro-States' rights and anti-States' rights) forces unaffiliated with the government, largely in the new territories, or on occasion between one of these armed bands and some government installation. The future Confederate states were probably sending their prayers to the armed pro-slavery groups, but they weren't willing to openly support them or to leave the Union until after their favored candidates lost the Presidency.

Your point is well made that the underlying conflicts were already being fought in the legislature and in the streets, but if you want to stretch that reasoning, the first shot of the Civil War was fired by Aaron Burr.

[Xyril]

To your other point Bandana is not an experienced captain and Andi is an experienced crew member - it is entirely possible that Andi is second in command on the ship, this is supported - weakly - here where she instructs the crew on how to behave.

Calling this even weak support is being generous. She's not really relaying/executing the Captain's orders in the way an XO would.

It is not unreasonable (but also not supported) to consider that she may not only have seen more of these scenarios than Bandana but is used to being in control when they go down (as Julio does heroic stuff and looks awesome).

In light of recent strips, it is a bit unreasonable. This depends on a few assumptions, chief among them that Julio, despite his sometimes absurd focus on narrative considerations when making decisions, is still a competent and rational Captain who wouldn't repeat horrible decisions for years, but I can't imagine that if Julio indeed made a habit of abandoning command to someone else in life-threatening situations, he would leave that command to Andi. Yes, the conflict between Andi and Bandanna is possibly an unprecedented situation. However, Andi completely losing her head in combat is something that absolutely would have happened before had she ever been left in charge.* Even if their previous enemies were weak compared to Hel and Xykon's forces, they were still empires and strong compared to the Mechane (plus, Julio's whole schtick kind of requires fighting against ostensibly overwhelming odds.)

*If you want to split hairs, it's certainly possible that between the last time Andi led a battle and this battle, Andi suffered some trauma or other intervening event that caused her to lose her prior composure, but such an event hasn't been implied in the story.

[skim172]

Lincoln could have not run (the Civil War was built on pre-existing tensions, but could easily have been delayed if he hadn't been elected President). Montezuma could have offered to be a Spanish subject. Romulus...I'd need to do a lot more research, but I could probably find something that would let him dump that problem on the next emperor's lap or otherwise avoid it.
It would, of course, not be reasonable to expect them to have done so. But that was kind of my intended point. I don't think Bandana could have been expected to do anything to prevent the mutiny.

I guess I disagree on that last statement. I think Bandana had reason to expect future problems, and had reasonable measures she could've taken. Which is not to say that her actions were unreasonable, either. Unfortunately, that course of events ended up with Andi going wrench-rage on the bridge. Maybe she did more off-panel, but in the comic, her primary response has been to ignore Andi and not give Andi the satisfaction. This was a reasonable course of action - but I think there were reasonable alternative actions she could've done with better expectations of success.

But she got handed a bad situation. Julio handed the keys of a Lamborghini to a first-time driver, on a curvey highway, going at 100 mph, with the cops in pursuit - while the president of the International Lamborghini Lovers Fan Club was sitting there in the passenger seat, holding a megaphone, a wrench, and an unread anger management textbook. Sure, Julio knew that kid was gonna grow up to be Mario Andretti, but he failed to mention that before he parachuted out of the car. In this scenario, it's quite reasonable that the kid might choose to ignore President Psycho Lamborghini and her megaphone - and then bam! Wrench-crease in the skull and now the Lamborghini is smashing through the guardrails.

As for Lincoln, Montezuma, and Romulus Whatshisface - I think they were in situations where the alternative courses of actions led to outcomes they would say were even more unreasonable. Their situations resembled more "stuck between a rock and a hard place". Except the Emperor Romulus something - he was more "stuck between a rock and the crushing force of hundreds of years of decline - and also he was like, twelve". (if i remember that right; it's been years since I took Occ Civ).

[Mad Humanist]

As for Lincoln, Montezuma, and Romulus Whatshisface - I think they were in situations where the alternative courses of actions led to outcomes they would say were even more unreasonable. Their situations resembled more "stuck between a rock and a hard place". Except the Emperor Romulus something - he was more "stuck between a rock and the crushing force of hundreds of years of decline - and also he was like, twelve". (if i remember that right; it's been years since I took Occ Civ).

Which Romulus are you thinking of. There is no historical Romulus I can think of. I assume you mean the mythical Romulus, brother of Remus, who supposedly founded Rome. But Rome was not in decline as there was nothing to decline from and he was not an Emperor because even the Romans did not foreshadow their future history to that extent.

Edit: Oh I see you meant Romulus Whatshisface. How could I forget about him?

[Marlowe]

Which Romulus are you thinking of. There is no historical Romulus I can think of. I assume you mean the mythical Romulus, brother of Remus, who supposedly founded Rome. But Rome was not in decline as there was nothing to decline from and he was not an Emperor because even the Romans did not foreshadow their future history to that extent.

Edit: Oh I see you meant Romulus Whatshisface. How could I forget about him?

Romulus Augustulus (roughly; "Romulus the-not-all-that-impressive-really") Last emperor of the west. Deposed in 476 by the general Odoacer and sent to live out his life in Campania. It's really not that hard a question.

[Xyril]

Which Romulus are you thinking of. There is no historical Romulus I can think of. I assume you mean the mythical Romulus, brother of Remus, who supposedly founded Rome. But Rome was not in decline as there was nothing to decline from and he was not an Emperor because even the Romans did not foreshadow their future history to that extent.

Edit: Oh I see you meant Romulus Whatshisface. How could I forget about him?

Romulus Augustulus. The full name was mentioned several times in the exchange you were joining, I'm surprised you didn't notice when reading through.

Also surprised that you couldn't think of the historical Romulus. He's the last (Western) Roman Emperor--I've always found it rather poetic that the last emperor of a Roman Empire actually containing the city of Rome shared a name with the city's mythical founder.