That's not Elan's or Nale's assessment - the lawyer scene is an outtake. So he's lawful evil to the best of our knowledge, which also fits his modus operandi.
Last edited by Deliverance : 09-20-2011 at 03:52 PM.
Tarquin is a lot of things, but lawful ain't one of them.
Uh, no. Tarquin is Lawful Evil. Same as Nale. Elan and Nale's mother was Chaotic good. The twins got their respective alignments from the custodial parent, and their "flair for the dramatic"/"overly complicated plans" from the absent parent.
Uh, no. Tarquin is Lawful Evil. Same as Nale. Elan and Nale's mother was Chaotic good. The twins got their respective alignments from the custodial parent, and their "flair for the dramatic"/"overly complicated plans" from the absent parent.
It was lowercase L lawful that was listed, not uppercase L lawful. And Tarquin has positioned himself as above the laws, so lower case L lawful is reasonable.
__________________
Fudge Assistant in the Playground.
Well I doubt that Elan or Haley (especially Haley) would accept personal jurisdiction from Tarquin's court system, although they probably wouldn't have difficulty laying venue since there's a clear location where the accident happened. At that point, the lawyers only get a trial if they can force Tarquin to drag Elan and Haley into court and that's not happening.
__________________
Lawyer Pony Avatar by Dirtytabs, exalted as an Eclipse by Elemental, now with a fancy robe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Giant
Anarion's right on the money here.
Quotes
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes
Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Anarion Mori?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiki Snakes
You just highlandered an entire city block into a glass-filled storm by road-runnering down it in your underwear.
It was lowercase L lawful that was listed, not uppercase L lawful. And Tarquin has positioned himself as above the laws, so lower case L lawful is reasonable.
Ummm Is there a difference between Lawful and lawful??
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrometheusMFD
I don't know what made me laugh harder, the original post or Hbgplayer's response
Well I doubt that Elan or Haley (especially Haley) would accept personal jurisdiction from Tarquin's court system, although they probably wouldn't have difficulty laying venue since there's a clear location where the accident happened. At that point, the lawyers only get a trial if they can force Tarquin to drag Elan and Haley into court and that's not happening.
Or to say it shorter and with Belkar's words: "I'm chaotic"
They are about to go file an assult charge on Haley or Elan.
What are the odds they win?
If they lose what kind of sentence do they get for wasting the courts time?
Technically, it's not assault - which is the threat of committing an unwanted touching.
A battery charge is possible - an actual unwanted touching. Elan did not intend the touching; it could be argued that he was negligent in putting his girlfriend in his pocket, but that argue should fail in the face of Elan's dealing with an emergency.
No, Elan should be in the clear. Who's in danger of being sued is Sabine, since it was her attack on Elan that proximately led to the battery. She may escape Tarquin's justice but those lawyers can pop up anywhere!
You are not responsible for your actions while petrified, particularly not while being attacked by the most wanted criminal in the dang kingdom :P
Not to mention dating the favorite son of the top general in said kingdom.
__________________
Notable and Quotable
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladeofOblivion
A NE Character with Perform (Sing and Dance).
That alone pretty much narrows it down to an Evil Bard or a Disney Character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asta Kask
Clearly the solution to everything is to binge on Girlscout cookies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogall
The Snarl could be a hacker code that became self-conscious, and would start posting gibberish and chaotic lines. But if you click its spoiler tags enough times, it would reveal a meta-fanfiction.
Hey, all I know is that laws and bureaucracy talk makes any fantasy story even more epic. Just look at the Star Wars prequels. On second thought, take back what I just said.
Hey, all I know is that laws and bureaucracy talk makes any fantasy story even more epic. Just look at the Star Wars prequels. On second thought, take back what I just said.
Why does everybody hate the Star Wars prequels?
__________________
Notable and Quotable
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladeofOblivion
A NE Character with Perform (Sing and Dance).
That alone pretty much narrows it down to an Evil Bard or a Disney Character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asta Kask
Clearly the solution to everything is to binge on Girlscout cookies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogall
The Snarl could be a hacker code that became self-conscious, and would start posting gibberish and chaotic lines. But if you click its spoiler tags enough times, it would reveal a meta-fanfiction.
@ the inevitable alignment debate - Tarquin is a good example of how, just like Lawful Good, Lawful Evil can be played in a number of different ways. Tarquin is an example of the style of Lawful that uses the rules as a base for their strength - Tarquin's power is given to him by law and order to a point, and in particular, he holds to a personal code of doing things 'properly'. In the same way that Roy sometimes uses Chaotic or Neutral means to accomplish Lawful Good ends, Tarquin is generally Lawful Evil but will sometimes use Chaotic means (e.g., imprisoning the bounty hunters) to Evil ends (revenge, in this case). And, more to the point, he's explicitly stated to be LE in-comic.
That said, no way he'd let anyone go after Elan: he does genuinely love him, and he's aware that Elan and the OOTS' well-being are important to his continued rule.
I probably shouldn't have asked here. Sorry, denthor.
__________________
Notable and Quotable
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladeofOblivion
A NE Character with Perform (Sing and Dance).
That alone pretty much narrows it down to an Evil Bard or a Disney Character.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asta Kask
Clearly the solution to everything is to binge on Girlscout cookies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nogall
The Snarl could be a hacker code that became self-conscious, and would start posting gibberish and chaotic lines. But if you click its spoiler tags enough times, it would reveal a meta-fanfiction.
As far as I know, half the board seems to frequent TVTropes.
Also, is there a particular reason you mention that website in completely unrelated contexts only to denigrate the people who like it while claiming that everyone agrees with you? It seems like childish behavior.
I'll take the middle ground between not answering and derailing, by spoilering my response. Here goes!
Spoiler
Well, I don't hate the Star Wars prequels, but I do think they have a lot of serious flaws. Here are a few of them:
1. Jar-Jar, the super-annoying "comic"-relief character. He really brought down the quality of the films with his ridiculous behavior and persona.
2. Midichlorians. A completely unnecessary and STUPID idea that contradicts the depiction of the force in the original movies.
3. Episode 1's "Let's see how many groups we can offend" shtick.
---Jamaican people (Jar-Jar)
---Japanese people (obviously Japanese-sounding evil businessmen)
---Christians (Darth Vader has a miraculous, virgin birth)
4. Jake Lloyd/Poorly-acted depiction of Child Anakin
5. Hayden Christensen/Whiny older Anakin
6. Poor Dialogue, e.g. "From MY point of view, the JEDI are evil!" (Really? "From my point of view"? They couldn't phrase the line any better than this?)
7. Obi-Wan leaving Anakin to slowly burn to death in agony, instead of trying to get him to a medic or at least put him out of his misery. (Yes, this one's awfully specific, but seriously, that's always really bothered me. What kind of a monster does that to someone, especially someone who even at one time was "like a brother" to him?)
8. Poor pacing of Anakin's turn to the dark side. It's not that it wasn't foreshadowed and set up at all, but it he was still really quick to go from "doubts about the Jedi" to "betray everyone I've ever known" and "willling to murder children".
9. Imagining how awesome the prequels could have been, if done differently. For instance:
---By episode 3, Anakin is already Vader. Most of the movie involves him hunting down and killing remaining Jedi--as he was said to have done in the original Star Wars. (Instead, all we got was "order 66".) Episodes 1 and 2 focus more explicitly on his training and setting up his eventual fall, rather than having a whole movie take place before his training even began. The relationships between Yoda, Dooku, Qui-Gon, and Obi-Wan are more fleshed out, along with the nature of the force. The intertwining themes surrounding these characters set up their eventual resolution via Luke and Vader in episodes 4-6.
Anyway, like I said, I don't hate the prequels. However, I think there's a lot of good reasons to criticize them.
OBJECTION! *points finger* The posters are clearly derailing the thread!
Regardless, the Lawyers aren't very competent; there's a far out-weighing of their wins (well, the bald lawyer's) to their losses (well, the haired lawyer's losses). Also, it'd be a surprising throw-away to drag them away from important confrontation; needless to say the situation would already have to be pretty silly for it to work, unless it's another Ranch Dressing situation.
__________________
It stands for 'At the Convenience of the Experimenter'.
The prequel movies hinged on an idiot plot: Their plot would have been entirely derailed had any of the characters not acted like idiots.
What "Sidious" lacked in the slightest trace of personality, he made up in skill at Xanatos Roulette.
The Emperor was actually very bad at manipulating in Return of the Jedi (while Vader was trying to corrupt Luke, the Emperor kept reminding Luke that he would be corrupted if he gave in to his anger). Mysteriously, while "Sidious" wasn't actually any better at manipulating in the prequel trilogy, everyone he was blatantly trying to manipulate ditched all their brains and did exactly what he wanted for no particular reason.
Since when are Jedi allowed to sadistically let their enemies burn nearly to death, self-righteously lecture them, and walk away? Setting aside the fact that that particular action of Obi-Wan's was as stupid as it was evil.
__________________
Spoiler
"You are what you do. Choose again, and change." --Miles Vorkosigan
"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan
The prequel movies hinged on an idiot plot: Their plot would have been entirely derailed had any of the characters not acted like idiots... {brilliant post shortened to avoid a long blockquote}
I actually pretend the Star Wars prequels don't exist. And they are different enough from the OT to me that it isn't hard to pretend this. Plus is makes Darths and Droids more fun to read.
As far as the lawyer talk, I thought it was all for comedic effect and I doubt it will have any bearing on the plot.
__________________ Thanks, Bradakhan, for the avatar!
Since when are Jedi allowed to sadistically let their enemies burn nearly to death, self-righteously lecture them, and walk away? Setting aside the fact that that particular action of Obi-Wan's was as stupid as it was evil.
In the novel, it's made clear that killing Anakin at that point would have been murder, not self defence, or "righteous vigilante justice".
It also has Obi-wan thinking that climbing down, at this point, might cost him more time than he has, given how close Palpatine is, and that saving Padme is more important.
In the novel, it's made clear that killing Anakin at that point would have been murder, not self defense, or "righteous vigilante justice".
It also has Obi-wan thinking that climbing down, at this point, might cost him more time than he has, given how close Palpatine is, and that saving Padme is more important.
The problem with that is that novels aren't the source. The fact that it was explained in the novel at all just drives the point further because it's something that was added exactly because it was suspect in the movie.
...or it's simply clarifying something that wasn't obvious in the movie. That makes it just bad writing and directing on Lucas' part. Or both.
What's this thread about again? Oh...Lawyers are cool guys.
It tends to be the other way round- novelizations being written late in the film cycle but before actual release- so they contain scenes that were dropped from the movie to save space.
Like the Jabba & Han scene- in the book, not in the original movie, added for the Special Edition.
In the novel, it's made clear that killing Anakin at that point would have been murder, not self defence, or "righteous vigilante justice".
But this is a false trichotomy. Like I said before, I'd argue that killing him would be an act of mercy, compared to leaving him to suffer in agony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamishspence
It also has Obi-wan thinking that climbing down, at this point, might cost him more time than he has, given how close Palpatine is, and that saving Padme is more important.
Climbing down? After the lightsaber strike that severed Anakin's limbs, Obi-Wan should have still been very close. He wasn't that far up a hill, and in the movie there's no indication that he even knows that Palpatine is close. On that point, I agree with previous posters that if the novels make a point of explaining all this, it just highlights how poorly the scene was handled in the movie itself.
RSS Feeds: 
Lawyer talk
Re: Lawyer talk
Is there a difference between Lawful and lawful?? 
Official Incense Aroma Specialist for the Vaarsuvius Fan Club! 
On second thought, take back what I just said.
)
