The rapid change in Tarquin

[AKA_Bait]

If Tarquin is genuinely incompetent, you might expect Nale of all people to bring it up -- while he was screaming at Tarquin would have been the perfect opportunity.

Because Nale was such a stellar judge of competently executed plans?

If Tarquin is under a delusion, it's one that Malack shares:

Malack: "You don't spend time with a general of Tarquin's calibre without learning a few things about attrition."

You know, considering how Tarquin squanders his men outside the pyramid, it occurs to me that this phrase could be read both ways. In other words, Malack could learn a lot about attrition by watching a bad general who just throws rank after rank of troops at a position until it is taken, regardless of whether that's the best strategy or not.

But I agree that Tarquin has been portrayed as a competent general and battlefield commander - for instance his initial conquest of a substantial portion of the continent, his management of the OOTS in their initial fight, his sussing out the trap (and knowing when to run) in the second. None of that is great strategy, especially if he had a big manpower advantage, but it's hard to buy him as incompetent as opposed to merely okay.

I think it's also fair to say that most of the "portrayal" of his competence was either a result of his own narration or of those who might have psychological reasons to picture him as more competent than he is (e.g., Ian Starshine).

[The Giant]

Malack did pretty unambiguously say Tarquin is a high-caliber general.

I thought that Tarquin is insane in a number of crippling ways was pretty obvious from nearly the first time he opened his mouth, but I am a little surprised that Rich also said he didn't have even a passing understanding of valid military strategy.

Eh, hyperbole on my part. He's probably average for a warrior his level, just not nearly good enough to pull off the things he's done strictly through military strategy.

EDIT: This is why I'm sorta starting to hate the out-of-context quoting; because I tend to exaggerate when speaking extemporaneously and describe things out of proportion to what I really intended when I wrote the scenes. I should learn to just stop talking about it, because everytime I say something I end up changing everyone's view of the events in the story, and I would be better served letting the story stand on its own and ignoring the critics.

[Kish]

Or, for that matter, Malack could think it was excellent strategy where a less-monstrous person would see a problem. "I see...if you have enough soldiers, trading their lives for something your enemy values is a strategy with no down side, just like if I can make Durkon spend actual spells to counter my unlimited vampiric gaze!"

[jere7my]

Malack did pretty unambiguously say Tarquin is a high-caliber general.

I thought that Tarquin is insane in a number of crippling ways was pretty obvious from nearly the first time he opened his mouth, but I am a little surprised that Rich also said he didn't have even a passing understanding of valid military strategy.

In the OotS world, someone who understands storytelling tropes at a high level can succeed at a lot of things they're not actually masters of. Tarquin can appear to be a masterful general for a long time, using the kind of genre knowledge Julio showed by arriving at exactly the right moment.

[AKA_Bait]

Eh, hyperbole on my part. He's probably average for a warrior his level, just not nearly good enough to pull off the things he's done strictly through military strategy.

(emphasis added)

Doing my best not to run over to the CL&G thread to claim Tarquin has an NPC class...

[sam79]

I meant "killer" in the sense of "someone who has the moral weight of murder on them." I assumed the question being put to me was discussing the morality of the situation, not the literal facts or the legal standing, which would be fairly clear-cut.

[snip]

OK? OK.

Ok. That makes a lot more sense to me. Thanks for clarifying your views for us.

ETA:

(emphasis added)

Doing my best not to run over to the CL&G thread to claim Tarquin has an NPC class...

10 gold says someone's already over there doing just that...

[Shale]

Or, for that matter, Malack could think it was excellent strategy where a less-monstrous person would see a problem. "I see...if you have enough soldiers, trading their lives for something your enemy values is a strategy with no down side, just like if I can make Durkon spend actual spells to counter my unlimited vampiric gaze!"

Plus he might just be inclined to hold his friend in higher esteem than he really deserves -- in the same way he gave Tarquin the benefit of the doubt by believing that he really was okay with Malack's plans for the unified continent, when he was really invested in the whole heroic-rebel-versus-evil-empire endgame.

[zimmerwald1915]

10 gold says someone's already over there doing just that...

It's been done, literally years ago, when Tarquin was first introduced and the only thing we knew about his combat prowess was that he had sky-high defenses and access to an absurd abundance of magic items. At that point, he could have been a Commoner.

[Fish]

Tarquin strikes me as the kind of villain who has memorized the what-not-to-do handbook of evil overlord cliches without bothering to learn something useful like "Art of War." He knows from storytelling what to avoid and when to strike ... but when it comes to knowing how to solve a problem before him, it's usually brute force that wins the day. Allosaurus vs commoner, legion of archers vs two gladiators, army vs Order. His arch-enemy is all about style.

He's really not that clever. Betraying the bounty hunters was incredibly petty and made no sense. When Malack was angry at Tarquin's showboating, Tarquin took a moment's pause, which I found telling. It was almost as if Tarquin were trying to decide what story this was. What would Hans Christian Andersen do? Ah, now I know my next line.

I agree with the line about "a general of Tarquin's caliber." He didn't say high caliber...

[masamune1]

Eh, hyperbole on my part. He's probably average for a warrior his level, just not nearly good enough to pull off the things he's done strictly through military strategy.

EDIT: This is why I'm sorta starting to hate the out-of-context quoting; because I tend to exaggerate when speaking extemporaneously and describe things out of proportion to what I really intended when I wrote the scenes. I should learn to just stop talking about it, because everytime I say something I end up changing everyone's view of the events in the story, and I would be better served letting the story stand on its own and ignoring the critics.

So, basically, he does have an at least basic understanding of political and military strategy?

He's average to above-average, at best / worst, or maybe better but for his fatal flaw of narrative fanaticism?

Because that's all I ask.

[Orm-Embar]

To be fair, that would make sense as a sarcastic comment; i.e. Tarquin's "caliber" of military strategy is to have more soldiers than the other guy so when you smash them all together he runs out first, and that's why Malack would learn about attrition from him.

But I agree that Tarquin has been portrayed as a competent general and battlefield commander - for instance his initial conquest of a substantial portion of the continent, his management of the OOTS in their initial fight, his sussing out the trap (and knowing when to run) in the second. None of that is great strategy, especially if he had a big manpower advantage, but it's hard to buy him as incompetent as opposed to merely okay.

Excellent point. If Tarquin wins by attrition, that may be an outstanding attribute for a skilled fighter (in a world of hit points based combat, anyway), but not for a skilled general. It's probably fair to read Malack's comment about attrition as sarcastic. Managing to win when he's got the advantage of numbers and a high-level/low-epic party isn't impressive, it's barely meeting expectations. In other words, average, though probably not scarily incompetent. I don't see how that's really inconsistent with Giant's comments.

You know, considering how Tarquin squanders his men outside the pyramid, it occurs to me that this phrase could be read both ways. In other words, Malack could learn a lot about attrition by watching a bad general who just throws rank after rank of troops at a position until it is taken, regardless of whether that's the best strategy or not.

Ninja'd by AKA Bait and others.

[ORione]

(emphasis added)

Doing my best not to run over to the CL&G thread to claim Tarquin has an NPC class...

The Giant was likely using the word "warrior" the same way Belkar uses it here. Basically, as a term for any fighter-like person.

I mean, maybe Tarquin is actually a warrior, but I'd hesitate to consider that statement proof.

[AKA_Bait]

The Giant was likely using the word "warrior" the same way Belkar uses it here. Basically, as a term for any fighter-like person.

I mean, maybe Tarquin is actually a warrior, but I'd hesitate to consider that statement proof.

You missed the wink emoticon, I take it?

[pyrefiend]

Wow, you guys find the weirdest things to argue about.

<More stuff>

I really don't understand the dismissive tone. I'm not critiquing you out of maliciousness, I'm honestly doing my best to understand your comments. I even pointed out that my own interpretation of your comment would be incorrect if it turned out that you were using alternative definition of "killer." As it turned out, that is what was going on, so I'm glad that the confusion is cleared up.

I don't know how anyone could be expected to respond to you in the forums except by agreeing or disagreeing with you.

[Scow2]

Wow, you guys find the weirdest things to argue about.

Welcome to the GiantitP forums. Are you new here?

[runeghost]

Eh, hyperbole on my part. He's probably average for a warrior his level, just not nearly good enough to pull off the things he's done strictly through military strategy.

Now that makes sense to me. I was having a hard time wrapping my brain around Tarquin being an incompetent general, strategist, or tactician. But him being mediocre, and chiefly succeeding via his knowledge of story conventions and tropes fits observed events quite well. Even stuff like his trap detection in 858 seems based more on his sense of drama than any game mechanic.

[rbetieh]

Or, for that matter, Malack could think it was excellent strategy where a less-monstrous person would see a problem. "I see...if you have enough soldiers, trading their lives for something your enemy values is a strategy with no down side, just like if I can make Durkon spend actual spells to counter my unlimited vampiric gaze!"

I dont know....Homer claims Odysseus is a strategic genius, and Tarquin is, in normal mode, all about Trojan Horse strategies...

The idea that Malack has no value for life at all and therefore expending soldiers is ok, may be valid, but Malackalso does seem to have some level of respect/admiration for Tarquin, and that has to come from somewhere. For all of his inefficiencies, Tarquin is still accomplishing the set out goals.

[rbetieh]

So, basically, he does have an at least basic understanding of political and military strategy?

He's average to above-average, at best / worst, or maybe better but for his fatal flaw of narrative fanaticism?

Because that's all I ask.

Well, on his own, he blitzed the continent and managed to step on enough toes to get defeated by "The Allies". So he had a successful first strike but didn't know how to consolidate his gains. The thing is, on this continent, everyone is of this level.

[Heksefatter]

Because Nale was such a stellar judge of competently executed plans?



You know, considering how Tarquin squanders his men outside the pyramid, it occurs to me that this phrase could be read both ways. In other words, Malack could learn a lot about attrition by watching a bad general who just throws rank after rank of troops at a position until it is taken, regardless of whether that's the best strategy or not.



I think it's also fair to say that most of the "portrayal" of his competence was either a result of his own narration or of those who might have psychological reasons to picture him as more competent than he is (e.g., Ian Starshine).

Nale could actually put some pretty good plans together, but let his ego get in the way. That said, I will clarify and expand on what was said earlier:

- It is not just Ian Starshine who describes Tarquin as a good general. It is also Geoff. Let me quote Geoff:

"When he first appeared on the continent, he conquered eleven nations in eight months. It took a coalition of twenty-six other countries to defeat him and drive him out."

This is Geoff, who appears far less Tarquin-fixated and far more reasonable than Ian, describing Tarquin as a bona fide military genuis. You do not conquer so many nations in so short a time without being a true genius. The only counter-argument I can see is if Tarquin had a ridiculously huge army, when he arrived on the continent. That doesn't seem plausible that you can sail to a continent with such an army, especially since Geoff attributes the achievement to Tarquin himself - he does not say "Tarquin arrived with the hugest army in the history of the continent and started overruning everything." Also note how Geoff says that Tarquin was only defeated by a vastly superior coalition: Twenty-six nations. If Tarquin just relied on superior numbers, he would most likely not have conquered a single nation, nor would it require a huge coalition to take him down.

After this, they also attribute the playing of all sides to Tarquin and not his allies. Again, it is Geoff speaking ("He plays both sides at the same time..."). In fact, it is Geoff who does most of the speaking, not Ian.

I post the link here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

If we look at Malack's comments, I suppose that you could take it both ways: Tarquin is a bad general, whose obvious mistakes I learn from, or he's a good general, etc. But there's been nothing to imply that Tarquin was outright incompetent as a general, and shortly after Malack uses another trick that Tarquin taught him (the tail-grapple), a trick which is very useful. So, Malack would be using two different understandings of learning from someone in rapid succession, while saying that Tarquin "taught" him both.

In both cases, it is possible to reconcile Tarquin's lack of ability with the presented facts. Geoff could simply be mistaken regarding Tarquin's role in all this: Maybe someone else did all the brainwork during Tarquin's conquests or maybe those conquests never really happened that way.

But it definitely not true that Tarquin is our only source of his skills as a general.

It should also be added that there are some references to Tarquin's competence from the Order, though strictly speaking not as a general. Haley assumes that Nale will do something if he's smart, or - if what was more likely - Tarquin was calling the shots. Essentially she's calling Tarquin smart.

Another time, which I've not been able to find, someone in the Order spoke of agreeing with Nale to keep the story of the Gates hidden from his significantly more competent father.

I will not say that Tarquin being (more or less) a fool has been completely ruled out by these comments, but I do think we have several statements from many different characters, not just himself, implying the contrary.

[pendell]

Eh, hyperbole on my part. He's probably average for a warrior his level, just not nearly good enough to pull off the things he's done strictly through military strategy.

EDIT: This is why I'm sorta starting to hate the out-of-context quoting; because I tend to exaggerate when speaking extemporaneously and describe things out of proportion to what I really intended when I wrote the scenes. I should learn to just stop talking about it, because everytime I say something I end up changing everyone's view of the events in the story, and I would be better served letting the story stand on its own and ignoring the critics.

Actually, I prefer you to comment. We should just add the above as a meta-quote and put it in pride of place in the comments thread.

In fact, I'm begging you. Please don't stop commenting just because the rest of us sometimes misunderstand you. We'll just have to take on board that you're an artist, not a computer programmer for whom the literal, logical meaning of words is life and death .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Giant]

I really don't understand the dismissive tone.

Ah, that's nothing. I can get a lot more dismissive than that.

Here's the thing: I find it creepy that everyone pays so much attention to every word choice I make outside the comic. Whether or not the original sentiment was 100% crystal clear in wording or not, the ultimate truth is that it was a throwaway comment answering a direct question that had nothing to do with the actual content of the Order of the Stick. It was a tangent, and then the thread started pulling apart my off-the-cuff word choices in that tangent when I only didn't take the time to write a more nuanced response because it wasn't important in the first place. Why is that a thing that gets debated? Why does anyone even care? I find that weird. That's all I was saying.

[masamune1]

Well, on his own, he blitzed the continent and managed to step on enough toes to get defeated by "The Allies". So he had a successful first strike but didn't know how to consolidate his gains. The thing is, on this continent, everyone is of this level.

Then he learnt from that, came back, and presently has been running a shadow dictatorship spanning the continent for the past twenty years. So he has learnt since how to consolidate his gains.

And his own assessment isn't that, but that he simply misunderstood the broader political situation. Regardless, I don't think either example suggests that "everyone" is on this level. "It took a coalition of 27 nations to stop him" doesn't suggest he was an easy enemy to beat.

[Shale]

- It is not just Ian Starshine who describes Tarquin as a good general. It is also Geoff. Let me quote Geoff:

"When he first appeared on the continent, he conquered eleven nations in eight months. It took a coalition of twenty-six other countries to defeat him and drive him out."

This is Geoff, who appears far less Tarquin-fixated and far more reasonable than Ian, describing Tarquin as a bona fide military genuis. You do not conquer so many nations in so short a time without being a true genius.

Unless you have an army described as being of overwhelming size, anyway.

[pendell]

With respect to Tarquin's competence, how about this:

Tarquin was once the general of a nigh-unstoppable army. He did indeed succeed in conquering almost the entire continent, only to have it undone because he made enough enemies that his brilliance and skill were not enough to overcome the military forces arrayed against him.

That's a political error, not a military one, and it's one that was made in the twentieth century by certain other military dictators who bear some resemblance to Tarquin .

So how about this:

Tarquin IS a highly competent, highly successful general and military leader.

However, his own personal estimate of his capabilities far exceed the reality. HE may think he is Grosse FeldMarschal Alle Zweitung (Greatest General of all time) , but in fact he's only in the second or third tier of famous generals. A Grant rather than a Rommel, a Pompey rather than a Caesar.

This allows him to achieve great things in the military sphere, but because he's not as good as he thinks he is, he tends to take on challenges out of his depth and get slaughtered, if his more levelheaded allies aren't around to bail him out.

Y'know, like going alone with only one companion onto an enemy ship occupied by a full adventuring party.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gift Jeraff]

But do we know where Geoff got his information from? Anyone who lived through Tarquin's reign probably barely remembers him as one of the many would-be conquerors that have come and gone. If his information about Tarkie's first empire came from some spy who got their hands on top secret documents, then there may have been some muddying of the truth by Tarquin himself.

[rbetieh]

Then he learnt from that, came back, and presently has been running a shadow dictatorship spanning the continent for the past twenty years. So he has learnt since how to consolidate his gains.

And his own assessment isn't that, but that he simply misunderstood the broader political situation. Regardless, I don't think either example suggests that "everyone" is on this level. "It took a coalition of 27 nations to stop him" doesn't suggest he was an easy enemy to beat.

The "everyone" is at that level comes from two things. The mapmaker in Sandsedge saying that would-be conquerors pop up all the time and are deposed within the year, and Tarquins own admission that he came to this continent because he heard stories of how easy it was to conquer yourself an empire here....

[CoffeeIncluded]

Ah, that's nothing. I can get a lot more dismissive than that.

Here's the thing: I find it creepy that everyone pays so much attention to every word choice I make outside the comic. Whether or not the original sentiment was 100% crystal clear in wording or not, the ultimate truth is that it was a throwaway comment answering a direct question that had nothing to do with the actual content of the Order of the Stick. It was a tangent, and then the thread started pulling apart my off-the-cuff word choices in that tangent when I only didn't take the time to write a more nuanced response because it wasn't important in the first place. Why is that a thing that gets debated? Why does anyone even care? I find that weird. That's all I was saying.

Because in this case it's really important to Tarquin's characterization. First we thought he was quirky. Then we realized he's got an insane plan. Then we realize that it's not just his plan that's insane, Tarquin himself is and has always been several thousand miles over the madness horizon and accelerating. And now the question is, how well has he been masking it? How well has his intelligence compensated for his madness? Has even his sense of control been a delusion this entire time? Do his teammates listen to him at all, pay him a lip service of, "Yeah, yeah, that's nice Tarquin," and mostly go along with their own agendas, or somewhere in between? And has it always been like this? How much is Tarquin actually competent, and how much is he a sad deluded evil old man?

[AKA_Bait]

It is not just Ian Starshine who describes Tarquin as a good general. It is also Geoff. Let me quote Geoff

But Geoff has (1) been spending quite a bit of time with Ian who may well be his information source, and (2) has the same emotional motivation to believe Tarquin is extremely competent (i.e., wouldn't it suck to be imprisoned by someone who wasn't even good at what they do?).

In both cases, it is possible to reconcile Tarquin's lack of ability with the presented facts.

If the only evidence pointing to a high level of competence can be interpreted both ways and there is evidence to the contrary (e.g., the way his party members treat Tarquin) that's not much of a leg to stand on, especially if the claim is that the author retconned a character out of some spiteful desire to punish the audience.

It should also be added that there are some references to Tarquin's competence from the Order, though strictly speaking not as a general. Haley assumes that Nale will do something if he's smart, or - if what was more likely - Tarquin was calling the shots. Essentially she's calling Tarquin smart.

Haley had no exposure to Tarquin and even at this point is not in a position to say much about his competence.

Another time, which I've not been able to find, someone in the Order spoke of agreeing with Nale to keep the story of the Gates hidden from his significantly more competent father.

Not saying much, really. Not only does the party have no experience with Tarquin, Nale had been beaten several times by the party while Tarquin appeared to be in charge of a nation.

[Kish]

Because in this case it's really important to Tarquin's characterization.

I defy anyone to explain how it is really important to Tarquin's characterization, whether every one of the women he has planned to rape and put forth his best effort to rape has somehow gotten away.

And yes, that is what started this whole long pointless argument about whether someone who attempts murder and fails is "a killer"--Rich saying that Tarquin is a rapist whether he's ever actually raped a woman, or just tried a whole lot.

[jere7my]

Because in this case it's really important to Tarquin's characterization. First we thought he was quirky. Then we realized he's got an insane plan. Then we realize that it's not just his plan that's insane, Tarquin himself is and has always been several thousand miles over the madness horizon and accelerating. And now the question is, how well has he been masking it? How well has his intelligence compensated for his madness? Has even his sense of control been a delusion this entire time? Do his teammates listen to him at all, pay him a lip service of, "Yeah, yeah, that's nice Tarquin," and mostly go along with their own agendas, or somewhere in between? And has it always been like this? How much is Tarquin actually competent, and how much is he a sad deluded evil old man?

Rich was talking about his usage of the word "killer" here. That had little to nothing to do with the content of the comic.