After their last argument , I'm beginning to think that both Tarquin and Ian are not so different afterall. Both are foreigners in a land that is not their own trying to impose their political views upon it. Both are also stubborn and believe that any other way of thinking besides their's is automatically wrong. And.....both are also fathers of respective protagonists.
Last edited by paladinofshojo : 10-01-2012 at 03:26 PM.
After their last argument , I'm beginning to think that both Tarquin and Ian are not so different afterall. Both are foreigners in a land that is not their own trying to impose their political views upon it. Both are also stubborn and believe that any other way of thinking besides their's is automatically wrong. And.....both are also fathers of respective protagonists.
Yeah, I’d say that that’s a good reading.
Now, let’s see if we can work Eugene in there somehow and really find out how bad the Daddy Issues are in the Order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2323mike
Yeah ... except for that they have completely opposite alignments.
Because alignment is the end-all of characterization.
After their last argument , I'm beginning to think that both Tarquin and Ian are not so different afterall. Both are foreigners in a land that is not their own trying to impose their political views upon it. Both are also stubborn and believe that any other way of thinking besides their's is automatically wrong. And.....both are also fathers of respective protagonists.
Excuse me? Who's the protagonist here?
__________________
Milk Chocolate Justiciar of the Haley fanclub
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarion
And remember, whoever captures the fox and brings it under their control first gains ownership and accompanying property rights over the wild beast.
I'm so incredibly relieved that this wasn't an attempt to argue that Ian and Tarquin are (somehow) literally the same.
ME TOO
The topic's title really had me worried, y'see.
Anyway, sure, they're probably going to wind up being mild foils for each other, given that they are the fathers of Elan and Haley and have exactly opposite alignments.
__________________
LGBTitP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti'esar
I just want to say that if this isn't the weirdest line of argument I've seen this thread take yet, it's not for lack of trying.
Come to think of it, other than being the father of a protagonist (inb4WMG), Girard would count too.
Outsiders? Yup.
Trying to impose views? It's a stretch, but "the gate must not fall into evil hands" ought to do it.
Dogmatic? Oh yes.
Also believes in strong family ties like Ian, and is paranoid enough for both of them.
__________________
SSBitP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)
"Creativity is the art of knowing how to hide one's sources." - Original quote, DO NOT STEAL.
Clearly the guy who abandoned his friend to hostile woodland bandits and betrayed his entire party all for the chance to potentially get with some complete stranger who moments ago was attacking him and his entire party. Clearly.
__________________
"Nothing you can't spell will ever work." - Will Rogers
"What you must learn is that these rules are no different than the rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent. Others can be broken." - Morpheus, The Matrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krellen
Remember, Evil isn't "selfish". It's Evil. "Look out for number one" is a Neutral attitude. Evil looks out for number one while crushing number two.
Because alignment is the end-all of characterization.
It is not, but it matters. A Paladin and an Anti-paladin, are both strongly devoted to their cause, after all, but the difference is pretty clear, I believe.
The axis Evil/Good, is one of the easiest ways to describe someone's behavior.
__________________
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Withman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang
Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeYounger
Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi
If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grimbold
THIS is proof that KA is amazing
Quote:
Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost
Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
Avatar removed, work in progress...
Last edited by Killer Angel : 10-08-2012 at 06:35 AM.
According to Book 5's commentary, Ian and Tarquin are the exact same person.
__________________ group hug! Hold Person.
~R.I.P. Thog (possibly) and Durkon Thundershield (eventually)~
Spoiler
Quote:
Originally Posted by martianmister
Mongolian hordes. Lots of lots of mongolian hordes. With a mongolian warrior chief. They will conquer Gobbotopia and rename it as Mongolitopia. Because that makes so much sense.
After their last argument , I'm beginning to think that both Tarquin and Ian are not so different afterall. Both are foreigners in a land that is not their own trying to impose their political views upon it. Both are also stubborn and believe that any other way of thinking besides their's is automatically wrong. And.....both are also fathers of respective protagonists.
However, the imposition of views is fundamentally different when one case is trying to enshrine their views into law and brutally enforce them whereas the other is trying to create a society where their views are not imposed at all, and where other people can choose to reject their views if they choose to do so. As for them being foreigners in a land that is not their own, that applies to either much of the population given the amount of migrations, troop movements and settling, etc. going on, or basically nobody if you consider this valid and the land belonging largely to the new people.
To some extent they are foils, but calling them the same and using the imposition of political views to do so is a stretch. A revolutionary leader and a tyrant are two very different positions, even if one can transition from one to the other under the correct circumstances.
__________________
Fudge Assistant in the Playground.
After their last argument , I'm beginning to think that both Tarquin and Ian are not so different afterall. Both are foreigners in a land that is not their own trying to impose their political views upon it. Both are also stubborn and believe that any other way of thinking besides their's is automatically wrong. And.....both are also fathers of respective protagonists.
Trying to take over an entire continent and be a dictator who rules with an iron fist, and trying to topple an evil dictator to make him not oppress people are not "imposing their political views" in the same sense.
Tarqin is imposing his political views on EVERYONE, Ian is imposing his political views on TARQIN.
So no, they're not the same in any meaningful way.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yora
Because they are both old school characters. They don't have complex personalties, they just grab wealth and power.
Ian got himself imprisoned by choice, how is that possibly a grab for wealth and power? He was gonna die in there if not for Haley.
__________________
Yar! I'm a signature virus, copy me into your signature!
Last edited by Mastikator : 10-09-2012 at 01:36 AM.
Trying to take over an entire continent and be a dictator who rules with an iron fist, and trying to topple an evil dictator to make him not oppress people are not "imposing their political views" in the same sense.
Tarqin is imposing his political views on EVERYONE, Ian is imposing his political views on TARQIN.
So no, they're not the same in any meaningful way.
Thank you!
__________________
GENERATION ∞: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Remember, ∞ + 1 = ∞.
After their last argument , I'm beginning to think that both Tarquin and Ian are not so different afterall. Both are foreigners in a land that is not their own trying to impose their political views upon it. Both are also stubborn and believe that any other way of thinking besides their's is automatically wrong. And.....both are also fathers of respective protagonists.
Tarquin isn't really trying to impose his views on the nation. He is more trying to impose his will on it. He doesn't care about the culture, nature, or opinions of the people of the Empire of Blood, and will cheerfully modify any of them to make himself more likely to keep power.
Ian, on the other hand, is doing the opposite. He doesn't care about being in power, but is extremely determined to alter the opinions of the Empire such that they do not want to have tyrants or strong authority figures in general.
They're almost exact opposites.
__________________ Patchwork Magisters - Volume III is now available! You know, if you like that sort of thing.
Tarqin is imposing his political views on EVERYONE, Ian is imposing his political views on TARQIN.
Not quite. Ian is imposing his political views on Tarquin and everybody who agrees with tarquin who's lives have improved under Tarquin's rule.. Some people simply don't want the kind of anarchic freedom Ian promotes and Ian would, yes, be forcing his ideology on those people.
It is not, but it matters. A Paladin and an Anti-paladin, are both strongly devoted to their cause, after all, but the difference is pretty clear, I believe.
The axis Evil/Good, is one of the easiest ways to describe someone's behavior.
It's not like line between chaotic good and lawful evil is really, really thin. They're two faces of the same coin.
Clearly the guy who abandoned his friend to hostile woodland bandits and betrayed his entire party all for the chance to potentially get with some complete stranger who moments ago was attacking him and his entire party. Clearly.
Minor quibble - "protagonist" does not necessarily mean "hero". It just means he's the one the story is about. See Scarface and The Godfather for examples of villainous protagonists.
Likewise, an antagonist is not necessarily villainous - it's just someone or something that provides conflict for the protagonist. See Sam Gerard of The Fugitive for a heroic antagonist.
Not quite. Ian is imposing his political views on Tarquin and everybody who agrees with tarquin who's lives have improved under Tarquin's rule.. Some people simply don't want the kind of anarchic freedom Ian promotes and Ian would, yes, be forcing his ideology on those people.
The people who agree with Tarqin are about as many as the humans who live in Azure city and agree with goblin rule.
__________________
Yar! I'm a signature virus, copy me into your signature!
The people who agree with Tarqin are about as many as the humans who live in Azure city and agree with goblin rule.
The bounty hunters seem to be doing passably well under Tarquin's rule. As well as the slavers, who are admittedly on strike. The members of the military and palace guard probably range from ambivalent to happy about the current state of things. I'd say there's quite a few in the Empire of Blood who like the way Tarquin is running the place (even if they don't know it's him calling the shots). If there weren't, there would've been a revolution already.
Unless by "people" you mean "non-Evil humans"; I usually read that to mean "sentient creatures" when the context is a fantasy setting with many varied sentient species.
__________________
LGBTitP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti'esar
I just want to say that if this isn't the weirdest line of argument I've seen this thread take yet, it's not for lack of trying.
The bounty hunters seem to be doing passably well under Tarquin's rule. As well as the slavers, who are admittedly on strike. The members of the military and palace guard probably range from ambivalent to happy about the current state of things.
There are two objections to be made. Well, there may be more, but two is all I can think of at the moment. First, there's no particular reason to believe that bounty hunters, slavers and slave drivers (it's the latter that are on strike), the military, and the police are representative of the people as a whole. With the exception of the bounty hunters and the slavers, all these people were both residents of Bleedingham and employees of the state - and the bounty hunters were independent contractors who ended up working for the state the only time we saw them. That this sample is rife with, well, sampling errors should be obvious. Second, why exactly should anyone with a reasonable regard for other beings' wellbeing and rights care at all for what bounty hunters, slavers, slave drivers, [REDACTED], and [REDACTED] think?
EDIT: my politics were showing.
Quote:
I'd say there's quite a few in the Empire of Blood who like the way Tarquin is running the place (even if they don't know it's him calling the shots). If there weren't, there would've been a revolution already.
Didn't you hear? There's a revolution, or at least a palace coup, every couple of years. The most recent one deposed a man with humanitarian and democratic incliniations - clearly revolution changes nothing and we, the common folk of the Western Continent can lapse into apathy with a clear conscience.
Not that revolution is even remotely possible in a universe with characters as powerful as high-level adventurers.
Quote:
Unless by "people" you mean "non-Evil humans"; I usually read that to mean "sentient creatures" when the context is a fantasy setting with many varied sentient species.
Well, barring an exceptional oversight there's non-evil lizardfolk in there too whose opinions deserve regard.
__________________
Milk Chocolate Justiciar of the Haley fanclub
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarion
And remember, whoever captures the fox and brings it under their control first gains ownership and accompanying property rights over the wild beast.
Now, I never said that a majority liked that style of rule. I was just attempting to point out that
is not really true.
Do we have the Census figures to know whether or not that is really true? That there is a sizable portion of the population of the Empire of Blood that are fine with the way Tarquin runs things doesn’t matter much if it is indeed true that the portion that doesn’t is approximately equal to the portion of Azurites unhappy with the Goblin Occupation. That is just a matter of numbers.
Do we have the Census figures to know whether or not that is really true? That there is a sizable portion of the population of the Empire of Blood that are fine with the way Tarquin runs things doesn’t matter much if it is indeed true that the portion that doesn’t is approximately equal to the portion of Azurites unhappy with the Goblin Occupation. That is just a matter of numbers.
I know of zero humans in Azure City who are okay with the way the goblins are running things (since Tsukiko died). I know of at least one person in the Empire of Blood who always agrees with Tarquin - Tarquin himself. This means there are more of the latter than the former, in a numerical sense - percentage-wise, we don't really know how many people are in the EoB in total or exactly how many agree with Tarquin, but they're still greater than 0. *shrug*
__________________
LGBTitP
Quote:
Originally Posted by ti'esar
I just want to say that if this isn't the weirdest line of argument I've seen this thread take yet, it's not for lack of trying.
RSS Feeds: 
Are Ian and Tarquin the same?
Excuse me? Who's the protagonist here?
Milk Chocolate Justiciar of the Haley fanclub 
