Active Users:191 Time:19/05/2024 01:22:52 PM
Re: Introducing Cannoli's Law of Villainy #1 Cannoli Send a noteboard - 30/04/2010 02:20:32 AM
I don't agree with this law. You can be self-indulgent and narcissistic without being stupid and suicidal.
But it's only suicidal in hindsight. Most of these instances of so-called suicidal behavior or gross incompetence only became so after the good guys pulled a rabbit out of their hats. Who goes out prepared for every little possible eventuality? Do you carry an umbrella everywhere on the off-chance it might rain, or a weapon just in case you get mugged in the suburbs? Do you except a piece of glorified farming equipment to be a lethal threat, or a person who has never consciously done an action that is your specialty to better you at it?

What? Who did it work with?
Well, all the Forsaken for one, and in human nature generally, such things have a high success rate. Most people fall for that sort of thing very easily.

Ishamael didn't know that he would resurface later, or he could only hope at best.
He might have known. He came back from what Rand thought were two fatal wounds in a row.

Except that Ishamael had nothing to do with the sounder of the Horn, that being Mat.
He didn't know that. He thought it was Rand, or at least his dialogue implied that. Rand thought so, too.
Rand and Ishamael's fight in the sky was something they were both unaware of - a cinematic extravaganza for the whole world to see with very little true relevance. Ishamael didn't want to kill Rand at first, but his staff was certainly lethal when he wanted it to be, though still foolish in the face of swordfighting.
Hammar Gaidin didn't seem to think so, and Galad and Gawyn learned really quick that it is not a foolish choice. And who won? The fight was a draw, Ba'alzamon lived to fight another day and Rand still suffers. Not only that, there is a good chance it might be responsible for his channeling sickness.


Well Rahvin does stand at full readiness when she's around, and he does mention her temper and her propensity to stab people in the back. Still, Asmodean was possibly duped by Lanfear in some ways, though if he'd achieved his goal, she would have been toast moments later.
Not so much with the incompetant, then.

Well no, because a flawed character doesn't mean a flawed battle plan. I don't know why you claim that villains have to foolish fighters just because they have a huge gap in their personalities. At worst, it's a weakness - though no worse than Rand's weakness for hurting women. It's a limiting factor that can be overcome by a shrewd mind.
But it is a very PERSONAL issue, and not always as obvious to the one acting under it. Rand's has a glaringly obvious drawback for combat, and he tries to avoid situations where it might seriously curtail him. Rahvin probably tries to limit his self-indulgence to not hurt him either, but he doesn't realize how it will hurt him, and what seems in retrospect like a blunder on his part is something that at the time could not have really been forseen. When you have turned a woman into your Compulsion sex-toy, you probably don't think about her rampant ego and immaturity that might cause her to run to her old nurse when she's upset or that her affront at being cheated on will be sufficient to overthrow your control. It wasn't like he kept her around to get public blow-jobs or passed her around to his buddies, or rubbed his number of other partners in her face. He was reasonable discreet and seems to have been taking precautions against her own ego slipping his Compulsion. He just had no way of forseeing how his self-indulgence was going to come back to bite him. As you point out, people can and do work around their character flaws, but they ARE character flaws and they are going to stick with the character.

No, the problem with Rahvin was that he sat on his throne and socialized while he knew that Rand was outside trying to get in. Would you do that if you knew the Dragon Reborn was on your doorstep. Rahvin deigned to send some long distance lightning after Rand, but was at his ease and assumed that Rand couldn't Travel and would play to his tune.
Except up until his lightning hit, Rand was NOT capable of Travel. Rahvin was right, and Rand's sudden ability to Travel came out of nowhere. He also was probably not socializing if he was meeting the nobles while sitting on his throne. Rather he was giving orders or holding court in some way, and the series should have made clear to all readers by now that rulers do that for serious reasons. He might have been giving them orders germane to defending Caemlyn from the "savages" for all we knew, or telling them his version of events to explain the presence of Shadowspawn in the Palace. There is no reason to assume he was up to anything frivolous at that moment.

A moments later he killed the whole leadership of Andor trying to kill Rand. So much for that.
As I said, over and above everything, Rahvin's survival is his primary priority, and later events reveal that: no, he DIDN'T kill the whole, or ANY of the leadership of Andor! All the High Seats of the major houses were still alive and fighting against Elayne long after Rahvin was dead. If anyone died, it would have been the leadership of one of the Houses that supported Elayne, since they were all noobs. But the six each behind Arymilla and Dyelin were long-timers, and most, if not all were named as supporters of Morgase during her Succession. Rahvin did not whack anyone important, not that it would have mattered if he had. Survive first, damage control later.


True, but not being a professional fighter is no excuse. If he couldn't do it right, he should have hidden like Moghedien.
But he doesn't know that. It was hardly a genius plan on her part, either, just reverting to her default status. Osan'gar on the other hand, is still the same guy who believes he met LTT stroke for stroke in a battle, and doesn't really believe he needs to hide from contemporary primitives.

We don't know the details of her death. Maybe Aran'gar is dead too.
True.

Nonsense. She became Semirhage to avoid being severed or bound, not to indulge in sadism.
And she did not want to be bound because she did not want to give up her pleasures. So I skipped a step for brevity's sake.
She did that anyway. The fact that the scenario presented its self to her was was ultimately undid her, or drew her in. I don't like Cannoli's villany law... it's too simplistic.
Occam backs it up.

I agree that their flaws are ultimately their downfall, and I think it's going to be true for the remaining Forsaken too. Even the characters in the Light have flaws, so I don't think it's sensible to make it the be all and end all of the Forsaken. Anyone's flaws can be exploited.
I think the surviving Forsaken are too arrogant to be bothered learning anyone else's flaws, aside from another Forsaken's, because those are the only ones they can really conceive of being a threat.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Forsaken deaths - incompetent or unlucky? - 28/04/2010 07:43:08 PM 1033 Views
Agreed, except I think Balthamel was obviously incompetent. - 28/04/2010 08:18:02 PM 515 Views
Re: Agreed, except I think Balthamel was obviously incompetent. - 29/04/2010 06:45:09 AM 446 Views
I don't believe in luck, so I tend to think they were incompetent and didn't adequately plan. *NM* - 28/04/2010 08:44:27 PM 201 Views
Re: I don't believe in luck, so I tend to think they were incompetent and didn't adequately plan. - 28/04/2010 09:49:19 PM 451 Views
You ever see the movie Idiocrasy? Apparently AoL was like that... *NM* - 29/04/2010 03:57:05 AM 236 Views
What do you mean by evolved? - 29/04/2010 04:34:38 AM 462 Views
Only the strongest survived. - 29/04/2010 03:04:33 PM 444 Views
Introducing Cannoli's Law of Villainy #1 - 29/04/2010 04:29:29 AM 684 Views
Re: Introducing Cannoli's Law of Villainy #1 - 29/04/2010 07:04:05 AM 606 Views
Re: About Ishamael - 29/04/2010 10:19:05 AM 432 Views
Re: Introducing Cannoli's Law of Villainy #1 - 30/04/2010 02:20:32 AM 516 Views
Well done. *NM* - 29/04/2010 05:00:20 PM 193 Views
True. Witness Hitler, his evil nature caused him to do obviously stupid and self-destructive things - 29/04/2010 05:54:46 PM 456 Views
A particularly good example. - 30/04/2010 02:39:16 AM 475 Views
Third option -- overconfident - 29/04/2010 05:48:35 PM 590 Views
Re: Forsaken deaths - incompetent or unlucky? - 30/04/2010 06:39:40 AM 587 Views

Reply to Message