Tarquin is not cold

[Dante2001]

So yeah, he killed his son but think about it:

-His son killed his best friend
-Mocked and taunt Tarquin about killing his best friend
-Killed his best friend's "sons" (or closest friends if you don't acknowledge them as family)
-Denied the help Tarquin was offering so he'd not get killed
-Failed to prove himself as a valuable asset

Only when Nale stated he didn't want T's protection, T killed him. I assume he thought this was not his son, just a blooded, feeble and useless murderer. I'm not saying killing your son can be justified, am just saying he left Tarquin no other choice.

Thoughts?

[Kaerou]

Tarquin is cold, but he's operating the exact way we should expect from him. While I expected a squad of archers half way through the comic, I suppose this one had to be done personally.

Nale denied he was his son. Tarquin accepted that decision, even asking 'are you sure?'. Once he denied he was his son, he became just another pawn. A pawn that had killed his best friend he had spent a long life with. There was only one real end for that kind of rebellious pawn.

Nale got what he deserved in the end. It wasn't as painful a fate as he deserved, but it was a fitting one. Tarquin was his last bridge, and he burned it twice.

[Jaycemonde]

Nale walked right into this one. I'd say everything that happened to him and his party was his fault, and both of you sum it up very well.

[nohamotyo]

Being cold and lacking emotions are not synonymous. Through the long list of atrocities we've seen Tarquin be a part of, Tarquin has never shown himself to be anything but cold.

Not once has Tarquin ever made an angry expression. Not when Malack was screaming in his face with a spell readied, not when Elan tried to fight him to the death, not when Nale made crystal clear that he would have no part in Tarquin's schemes. At his most emotional, he's had the flat eyebrows of annoyance.

As he murdered his son and stood over his corpse, he maintained a poker face. As he told Elan about the slaves he had staked and burned to death, he had a smile on his face. I don't understand how, after seeing what Tarquin has done and how he's reacted to those events, his lack of empathy could be glossed over.

[Reaver225]

Being cold and lacking emotions are not synonymous. Through the long list of atrocities we've seen Tarquin be a part of, Tarquin has never shown himself to be anything but cold.

Not once has Tarquin ever made an angry expression. Not when Malack was screaming in his face with a spell readied, not when Elan tried to fight him to the death, not when Nale made crystal clear that he would have no part in Tarquin's schemes. At his most emotional, he's had the flat eyebrows of annoyance.

As he murdered his son and stood over his corpse, he maintained a poker face. As he told Elan about the slaves he had staked and burned to death, he had a smile on his face. I don't understand how, after seeing what Tarquin has done and how he's reacted to those events, his lack of empathy could be glossed over.
He's got a facade, yes. But just look at that panel before he stabs Nale. That one sigh, realising how things have gone wrong and how he can't fix it with words.

And anger, afterwards. Chiding Nale even as he dies.

Composure, yes. Not emotionless, though.

[Aeek]

He's got a facade, yes. But just look at that panel before he stabs Nale. That one sigh, realising how things have gone wrong and how he can't fix it with words.

And anger, afterwards. Chiding Nale even as he dies.

Composure, yes. Not emotionless, though.

This. Way better put than I was likely to :smallsmile: "Sigh"

[nohamotyo]

He's got a facade, yes. But just look at that panel before he stabs Nale. That one sigh, realising how things have gone wrong and how he can't fix it with words.

And anger, afterwards. Chiding Nale even as he dies.

Composure, yes. Not emotionless, though.

Tarquin's lack of empathy makes him cold, unless the thread creator's definition of "cold" is supposed to mean emotionless.

[TengYt]

He lives in a scorching desert, he's not cold.

[Xelbiuj]

If Tarquin didn't generally care about his sons, Nale at least would have been wasted long ago.

He gave him every possible out and Nale rejected it. A quick death may have been merciful compared to what the rest of the team would have done.

At that point, what could he have done?

Mock trial? Even forgetting that you get the death penalty for pissing in the street in the EoB, the rest of TT can't be that ****ing stupid.

Life in prison? Unsatisfactory to the rest of the team, business wise Nale would still be a threat. No argument against that.

Tearing the empire apart, civil war and betraying the rest of his team? That's not an option.

[Mike Havran]

There was no other way how could Tarquin walk away from that without losing much more than he already did. His "faith" in Nale has proved to be completely wasted and to discover that, he already lost Malack. There was no way how to continue the delusion, he needed to accept the losses and make a sharp way to assure they won't increase.

[JSSheridan]

I think this is more or less how Evil operates in Rich's world.

To paraphrase SoD: Ninety percent of small-time villains fail within five years.

The first rule to being eighteen inches tall (Though in reality, the first rule to being evil.) is: find someone more powerful than you and glue your lips to their ass. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0625.html)

Our place is as an obedient slave to those who command us. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0875.html)

Basically, if you're evil and not part of a larger organization that can protect you, you'll be taken down by heroes or eliminated by competitors.

Xykon's and Tarquin's parties are the exceptions.

[warmachine]

I do not regard being cold and being justified in killing your son as mutually exclusive. Being cold means setting aside compassion and empathy. That it was rational supports the coldness of the act.

[crayzz]

-Killed his best friend's "sons" (or closest friends if you don't acknowledge them as family)



Do we know Malacks children were male?

[The Pilgrim]

Tarquin lacks any empathy towards other beings and their emotions. That helps him be cold.

He killed Nale because Nale denied him. Not that Nale didn't deserved to die, but that doesn't change the fact that Tarquin murdered him for all the wrong reasons.

[Chad30]

I think what Tarquin did was practical. Even if he was a good guy, it couldn't be far from anyone's limit. Nale had his head so stuck up his butt, he didn't even see the danger he was in. I think his final expression of surprise shows his level of arrogance. He should have found out long ago that to tarquin, you're either a valuable asset or you're expendable. I really don't know what Nale expected the end result of that was going to be. It's really hard to tell what went on in his head, which may be a good indication that he was flat out insane.

[Xelbiuj]

Tarquin lacks any empathy towards other beings and their emotions. That helps him be cold.

He killed Nale because Nale denied him. Not that Nale didn't deserved to die, but that doesn't change the fact that Tarquin murdered him for all the wrong reasons.

No, Nale could have denied him and done whatever he wanted, he just couldn't also murder Tarquin's friends, attempt a coup, etc. . . There's no indication that he killed him out of the same petty, jealous spite that Nale had for Elan.

[masamune1]

I remember when Tarquin said that it was weird how people kept cheering for Thog, no matter how many people he killed.

Even back then, it applied to Tarquin himself as well.

I really do think you're supposed to have some sympathy for Nale in this chapter, if only a little. Tarquin asks Nale what he wants from him, and Nale says "NOTHING!" and then goes on a rant about all Tarquin's nepotism and crappy parenting. Nale is the way he is because his dad never treated him as anything other than a pawn his entire life. Nale isn't a good person and he pretty much had it coming, but Tarquin is worse and he made it clear that he was more concerned about his "gang" than his own sons (remember he's willing to kill Elan too, in a fight to the death, if Elan isn't good enough to kill him). Even his gang is really best friends second, useful assets first.

Nale is the way he is because he is tired of being used, treated as a legacy or a pawn, always told what to do in order to benefit Tarquin or one of his convoluted schemes. Becoming an evil villain in his own right wasn't exactly the most righteous path to take, but the reason he needs to rub everybody's face in his victories is that Tarquin and his buddies have been ignoring or abusing him his entire life.

And Tarquin is so selfish and sociopathic that he either doesn't notice or care. Tarquin feels precisely zero compassion for either of his kids, because compassion by definition is unconditional love. Murdering Nale because he ranted at him and killed somebody who was trying to kill him (though really more for the rant, because Tarquin was willing to let the last one slide) proves that Tarquin's "love" was pretty damn conditional. Tarquin is a glorified (if cultured) thug (for some reason I keep thinking "biker gang") who is more worried about how his son will embarrass him in front of his friends than his own sons life, and in order to save face after Nale disowned him and killed Malack was to murder him. Not because he had to (a man like Tarquin has plenty of options, and Nale is unlikely to be a serious threat, even after killing Malack), but because it was just the most straightforward option- and, knowing Tarquin, because it makes him look more villainous, especially since Elan is there.

Of course, its possible Nale will be resurrected by Sabine, but we'll have to wait to see if Tarquin takes any steps to prevent that or not.

Oh, and hi everyone! That's my first post. Nice to be here.

[SavageWombat]

Perhaps the appropriate term is that Tarquin has sang froid. He has emotions - but he's not gonna show them to you.

[WindStruck]

Being cold and lacking emotions are not synonymous. Through the long list of atrocities we've seen Tarquin be a part of, Tarquin has never shown himself to be anything but cold.

Not once has Tarquin ever made an angry expression. Not when Malack was screaming in his face with a spell readied, not when Elan tried to fight him to the death, not when Nale made crystal clear that he would have no part in Tarquin's schemes. At his most emotional, he's had the flat eyebrows of annoyance.

As he murdered his son and stood over his corpse, he maintained a poker face. As he told Elan about the slaves he had staked and burned to death, he had a smile on his face. I don't understand how, after seeing what Tarquin has done and how he's reacted to those events, his lack of empathy could be glossed over.

Check the 2nd-to-last panel of the first, er... page.

[The Pilgrim]

I remember when Tarquin said that it was weird how people kept cheering for Thog, no matter how many people he killed.

Even back then, it applied to Tarquin himself as well.

I really do think you're supposed to have some sympathy for Nale in this chapter, if only a little. Tarquin asks Nale what he wants from him, and Nale says "NOTHING!" and then goes on a rant about all Tarquin's nepotism and crappy parenting. Nale is the way he is because his dad never treated him as anything other than a pawn his entire life. Nale isn't a good person and he pretty much had it coming, but Tarquin is worse and he pretty much made it clear that he was more concerned about his "gang" than his own sons (remember he's willing to kill Elan too, in a fight to the death, if Elan isn't good enough to kill him). Even his gang is really best friends second, useful assets first.

Nale is the way he is because he is tired of being used, treated as a legacy or a pawn, always told what to do in order to benefit Tarquin or one of his convoluted schemes. Becoming an evil villain in his own right wasn't exactly the most righteous path to take, but the reason he needs to rub everybody's face in his victories is that Tarquin and his buddies have been ignoring or abusing him his entire life.

And Tarquin is so selfish and sociopathic that he either doesn't notice or care. Tarquin feels precisely zero compassion for either of his kids, because compassion by definition is unconditional love. Murdering Nale because he ranted at him and killed somebody who was trying to kill him (though really more for the rant, because Tarquin was willing to let the last one side) proves that Tarquin's "love" was pretty damn conditional. Tarquin is a glorified (if cultured) thug (for some reason I keep thinking "biker gang") who is more worried about how his son will embarrass him in front of his friends than his own sons life, and in order to save face after Nale disowned him and killed Malack was to murder him. Not because he had to (a man like Tarquin has plenty of options, and Nale is unlikely to be a serious threat, even after killing Malack), but because it was just the most straightforward option- and, knowing Tarquin, because it makes him look more villainous, especially since Elan is there.

Of course, its possible Nale will be resurrected by Sabine, but we'll have to wait to see if Tarquin takes any steps to prevent that or not.

Oh, and hi everyone! That's my first post. Nice to be here.

Amen to that. And welcome to the playground.

[Chad30]

Welcome Masamune1. Personally I'm not sure there's such a thing as unconditional love, and I do believe Tarquin shows compassion towards people. I think he's genuinely friends with his group, and wants to see people he cares about do well. He just suffers from moral myopia. I don't really know what their past was like, but I think a big part of it is Nale's arrogance and bloated self worth. I don't really feel sorry for Nale. I also don't approve of Tarquin's actions, except perhaps killing Nale because there was little else he could do.

[Valanarch]

If Tarquin hadn't killed Nale, Laurin would have and she probably wouldn't have made his end so painless. And what was Tarquin supposed to do? If he hadn't killed him, Laurin would have, and he couldn't have stopped her. He would have had to go against all of his friends and probably kill some of them to save the life of a stupid, incompetent son. Tarquin wouldn't do that, just like Roy wouldn't kill everyone in the Order of the Stick to save Julia's life.

[Kawaii Soldier]

Meh, from what I've seen very few males in Elan's family* are good. It's just evil attacking evil. If a dragon ate an orc because said orc was trying to steal some of the dragon's gold it got from burning down a village I'd still feel no sympathy for either.

*By this I mean only Elan.

[Reaver225]

And Tarquin is so selfish and sociopathic that he either doesn't notice or care. Tarquin feels precisely zero compassion for either of his kids, because compassion by definition is unconditional love. Murdering Nale because he ranted at him and killed somebody who was trying to kill him (though really more for the rant, because Tarquin was willing to let the last one side) proves that Tarquin's "love" was pretty damn conditional. Tarquin is a glorified (if cultured) thug (for some reason I keep thinking "biker gang") who is more worried about how his son will embarrass him in front of his friends than his own sons life, and in order to save face after Nale disowned him and killed Malack was to murder him. Not because he had to (a man like Tarquin has plenty of options, and Nale is unlikely to be a serious threat, even after killing Malack), but because it was just the most straightforward option- and, knowing Tarquin, because it makes him look more villainous, especially since Elan is there. Nice to see your first post, Masamune!

I'd disagree with a fair amount of what you said, but espeically this part.

Tarquin had said as a matter of fact that had Nale been anyone else, he would have snuffed him out long ago.

It's quite literally by stabbing him to death that Tarquin has treated Nale exactly how he wanted to be treated; without any fatherly love or pity. Tarquin's previous offer to "smooth things over" is pragmatic to make sure no-one else was going to kill Nale over Malack, not to make sure Nale doesn't embarrass him.

For the last part - well, he IS evil. And Nale dying is what makes sense there. What else would you expect for attacking your erstwhile allies and proclaiming their murder, while low on health and without an escape route yourself?

[Kuroshima]

I personally feel that this was one of the most emotional scenes we will get out of Tarquin. After Nale's tirade, his fate was sealed, and so Tarquin game him the honor of a quick death, by his hand, instead of the long death be both deserved and would have gotten from the rest of Team Tarquin.

I see this more akin to Ned Stark making sure that it's his hand who wields the executioner's blade.

[masamune1]

Nice to see your first post, Masamune!

I'd disagree with a fair amount of what you said, but espeically this part.

Tarquin had said as a matter of fact that had Nale been anyone else, he would have snuffed him out long ago.

It's quite literally by stabbing him to death that Tarquin has treated Nale exactly how he wanted to be treated; without any fatherly love or pity. Tarquin's previous offer to "smooth things over" is pragmatic to make sure no-one else was going to kill Nale over Malack, not to make sure Nale doesn't embarrass him.

For the last part - well, he IS evil. And Nale dying is what makes sense there. What else would you expect for attacking your erstwhile allies and proclaiming their murder, while low on health and without an escape route yourself?

He "loves" Nale the way the average narcissistic sociopath "loves" their children- they are extensions of themselves. He "cared" for Nale because Nale was basically a (dumber) version of himself, and saw him as a legacy. That isn't compassion. And he put his own interests ahead of that; he might console himself by saying "well, I've got another son", but Nale was never anything other than a long-term investment gone wrong. If Nale says he doesn't want to be an investment, then his days are numbered.

I'm not going to give Tarquin too much credit for stabbing Nale rather than torturing him. It was pragmatic mainly because he had other things to do, not necessarily because of mercy. Ultimately this all comes down to "Tarquin did the right thing- when you consider he is a heartless monster". Time will tell what excuses he will give, but it doesn't make him any less of a bastard. Either he didn't care about his son at all or he only hardly cared for him. Nale turned out the way he did in large part because of how Tarquin raised him in the first place.

[Chad30]

If he didn't care about his son, he wouldn't have let Nale live as long as he did. I do believe he can genuinely care about people. He just place people he finds valuable above other people. Just like when he once got offended when Elan said he would hurt people, then asked Elan what his definition of "people" is.

He's not a complete emotionless psychopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself. He's evil, but not that evil. I think he does care about some people, and it's one of his redeeming qualities, but it doesn't overshadow the other stuff.

It isn't just that he killed Nale because Nale refused to play by his rules. It's that Nale has done this for years and was planning on getting rid of Tarquin. You don't see Tarquin going after Elan's mother just because she broke up with him and took Elan from him.

[Jay R]

Life in prison? Unsatisfactory to the rest of the team, business wise Nale would still be a threat. No argument against that.

Also, it's not possible. Nale wouldn't last five minutes. When Elan visited the jail, there was a knife to his throat almost instantly, just because he looks like Tarquin.

[Valanarch]

He "loves" Nale the way the average narcissistic sociopath "loves" their children- they are extensions of themselves. He "cared" for Nale because Nale was basically a (dumber) version of himself, and saw him as a legacy. That isn't compassion. And he put his own interests ahead of that; he might console himself by saying "well, I've got another son", but Nale was never anything other than a long-term investment gone wrong. If Nale says he doesn't want to be an investment, then his days are numbered.

I'm not going to give Tarquin too much credit for stabbing Nale rather than torturing him. It was pragmatic mainly because he had other things to do, not necessarily because of mercy. Ultimately this all comes down to "Tarquin did the right thing- when you consider he is a heartless monster". Time will tell what excuses he will give, but it doesn't make him any less of a bastard. Either he didn't care about his son at all or he only hardly cared for him. Nale turned out the way he did in large part because of how Tarquin raised him in the first place.

Tarquin did care about his son. He let him live in the palace, he gave him back the Linear Guild, and he even offered to protect him from Laurin. However, Nale didn't know when to quit. He told Tarquin that he had killed his best friend. He then proceeded to insult Tarquin to his face and refuse help from him. If Tarquin hadn't killed him, Laurin would have and he wouldn't have been able to stop her without killing her. That would mean that it would destroy all of his plans, plunge the entire continent into chaos, and make all of Tarquin's friends turn on him. In the end, it was the only possible choice. Tarquin loved Nale, but he loved his team of friends more.

[masamune1]

If he didn't care about his son, he wouldn't have let Nale live as long as he did. I do believe he can genuinely care about people. He just place people he finds valuable above other people. Just like when he once got offended when Elan said he would hurt people, then asked Elan what his definition of "people" is.

He's not a complete emotionless psychopath who doesn't care about anyone but himself. He's evil, but not that evil. I think he does care about some people, and it's one of his redeeming qualities, but it doesn't overshadow the other stuff.

It isn't just that he killed Nale because Nale refused to play by his rules. It's that Nale has done this for years and was planning on getting rid of Tarquin. You don't see Tarquin going after Elan's mother just because she broke up with him and took Elan from him.

No, but that's because Tarquin is the one who broke up with her.

And he doesn't care that Nale is trying to overthrow him, or that he's been doing it for years- I mean, he actually encourages Elan to do the same. Its that Nale is doing such a crappy job of it that the only thing to do is try and make a useful tool out of him ; Nale refuses to be even that, so he dies.

Tarquin cares, but its not compassion. Its narcissistic love. It would be strange if Tarquin thought Nale killing Malack and trying to defeat him is terrible but Elan attempting much the same thing is so bad. Nale commited the cardinal sin of going off script.

We'll see if he expects Nale to be resurrected though.

[Reaver225]

If Tarquin hadn't killed him, Laurin would have and he wouldn't have been able to stop her without killing her. That would mean that it would destroy all of his plans, plunge the entire continent into chaos, and make all of Tarquin's friends turn on him. In the end, it was the only possible choice. Tarquin loved Nale, but he loved his team of friends more.Actually, he DID try to smooth things over with the psion. Nale didn't try to go along with it. He could certainly have tried, and likely even succeeded ("No, let him run and think he's going to get away with it, my plans which I won't reveal will end up more torturous than anything you can do").

It's just Nale didn't want any more help.

[Chad30]

I guess we just have alternate character interpretations of Tarquin. I don't see him being what I would view as Narcissistic.

[Edhelras]

He lives in a scorching desert, he's not cold.

He lives in a friggin desert - of course he needs to wear those Bracers of Uber-coldness (that accidentally works on his heart as well as his core temperature...)

[Captain Morgan]

No, but that's because Tarquin is the one who broke up with her.

And he doesn't care that Nale is trying to overthrow him, or that he's been doing it for years- I mean, he actually encourages Elan to do the same. Its that Nale is doing such a crappy job of it that the only thing to do is try and make a useful tool out of him ; Nale refuses to be even that, so he dies.

Tarquin cares, but its not compassion. Its narcissistic love. It would be strange if Tarquin thought Nale killing Malack and trying to defeat him is terrible but Elan attempting much the same thing is so bad. Nale commited the cardinal sin of going off script.

We'll see if he expects Nale to be resurrected though.

I don't think you are entirely wrong, especially that Nale is product of how Tarquin raised him, but I don't think the other guys are wrong either. We should take into account that love is a poorly defined concept. We are cultured to believe that some sort of "true love" which applies to romance and family, but there are reasons to believe this is suspect.

Compassion has it's own selfish benefits. If I go out of my way to help others, there is a good chance that I will feel better about having done it than otherwise. There is room for Tarquin to care for his sons both out of fatherly love but also wanting them to be his pawns. Most parents do this in real life.

I also think that it wasn't really a spiteful choice to kill Nale, but a combination of respecting Nale's decision not to accept any protection from him and the sheer pragmatism of avenging Malack.

So, yeah, Tarquin IS a monster, but he is a complicated one.

[ghoul-n]

His face at panels #5 and #6 looks very much like (non-so)heroic BSOD to me.

[Edhelras]

Nale is the way he is because he is tired of being used, treated as a legacy or a pawn, always told what to do in order to benefit Tarquin or one of his convoluted schemes. Becoming an evil villain in his own right wasn't exactly the most righteous path to take, but the reason he needs to rub everybody's face in his victories is that Tarquin and his buddies have been ignoring or abusing him his entire life.

Oh, and hi everyone! That's my first post. Nice to be here.

Hi there!

Interesting question - WHEN does one, in DnD, actually acquire an alignment? Are you born with it, or do you develop it during childhood and young adulthood? Are everybody True Neutral at birth, and then deviate into one of the 9 alignments? Given how much Evil-prone the True Neutral alignment actually allows for, that would imply that newborn kids are rather nasty creatures. Given how we usually view infants (the exemplar of innocence and closely related to goodness), it would be more realistic to envision that children are born Neutral Good (Law and Chaos are particularly hard to connect to children who cannot even talk, much less understand the concept of laws or even remember them).

But I think it's hard, altogether, to kinda classify children alignmentwise. Much like the personality disorders in real-life human psychiatry, which you should be cautious diagnosing in youngsters because their personality isn't yet fully fleshed out and consolidated.

However, this interesting strip illuminates Nale's alignment, even from childhood: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html
Even in diapers, Nale smacks his brother (possibly repeatedly, and seemingly unprovoked). And he does so with a determined facial expression (heck, he even has an Evil goatee already!!!) that indicates that Elan-smacking isn't just childrens' play, it's a voluntary act of hurting his own brother.

So, given that Elan and Nale are near-identical twins (the goatee, and the alignment that follows it, sets them apart) and presumably got the same basic upbringing before their parents' divorce - it might be that Nale was Evil (and Elan was Good) from a very, very early stage of their lives, possibly from the fetal stage or even from conception.
How this is to be explained, genetics-wise, I'm not sure. Perhaps your basic alignment is determined by a certain cellular organelle or particle, and at that time when the zygote that developed into both Elan and Nale (they're monozygotic twins) split apart, the alignment-particle was unevenly distributed so that Elan became Good and Nale became Evil.

Or - maybe modern genetics isn't really meant to be used in the DnD or OOTS universe. Maybe that....

[Jaycemonde]

Or - maybe modern genetics isn't really meant to be used in the DnD or OOTS universe. Maybe that....

Even if genetics were to influence Nale's and Elan's alignments (latent aggression, spatial awareness and the ability to plan, etc.), their upbringing and the way they've lived their adult lives has been just as much of a deciding factor in the way they ended up.

[hamishspence]

Interesting question - WHEN does one, in DnD, actually acquire an alignment? Are you born with it, or do you develop it during childhood and young adulthood? Are everybody True Neutral at birth, and then deviate into one of the 9 alignments? Given how much Evil-prone the True Neutral alignment actually allows for, that would imply that newborn kids are rather nasty creatures. Given how we usually view infants (the exemplar of innocence and closely related to goodness), it would be more realistic to envision that children are born Neutral Good (Law and Chaos are particularly hard to connect to children who cannot even talk, much less understand the concept of laws or even remember them).

We know of at least one toddler in the Stickverse making it into the LG afterlife:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html

[masamune1]

I don't think you are entirely wrong, especially that Nale is product of how Tarquin raised him, but I don't think the other guys are wrong either. We should take into account that love is a poorly defined concept. We are cultured to believe that some sort of "true love" which applies to romance and family, but there are reasons to believe this is suspect.

Compassion has it's own selfish benefits. If I go out of my way to help others, there is a good chance that I will feel better about having done it than otherwise. There is room for Tarquin to care for his sons both out of fatherly love but also wanting them to be his pawns. Most parents do this in real life.

I also think that it wasn't really a spiteful choice to kill Nale, but a combination of respecting Nale's decision not to accept any protection from him and the sheer pragmatism of avenging Malack.

So, yeah, Tarquin IS a monster, but he is a complicated one.

Compassion is pretty much the definition of selflessness. That it feels warm and fuzzy inside doesn't make it selfish, because you don't act compassionate for the sake of that. You feel warm and fuzzy because you are compassionate.

A man might feel good from burning some villages down for no reason, or he might feel terrible; neither makes it selfless.

At least, that's the case for deep, genuine compassion, with substance. There may be people who act compassionate because they've heard it does good things for them, just like there are people who act bad for the same reasons, or because they think its pragmatic. But compassion in and of itself is inherently selfless, by definition, regardless of the reasons you got into it. If you are only acting compassionate because it makes you feel good then you're compassion is lacking.

I certainly don't think he respects Nale; that's kind of the problem, after all. Or if he does, his idea of respect is twisted (which is possible, I guess).

Basically either Tarquin doesn't really love his sons at all, or his love is so weak it doesn't really matter. Either way, the first poster was saying he wasn't cold, and he absolutely is.

Though I'm open to the possibility that he is playing a longer game, and expects Nale to come back from death.

I don't know if I'd call what Tarquin feels for his sons "compassion", especially since it literally means "co-suffering"; that is, he feels their pain, which he pretty obviously does not. But whatever love he has, if that's what it is, is pretty shallow regardless.

He can kill Nale out of both pragmatism and spite; people usually have more than one reason for doing things. If he wants revenge for Malack then I'd call that spite anyway, but I'm pretty sure the whole thing with Nale disowning his father and all but spitting in his face counts too.

Hi there!

Interesting question - WHEN does one, in DnD, actually acquire an alignment? Are you born with it, or do you develop it during childhood and young adulthood? Are everybody True Neutral at birth, and then deviate into one of the 9 alignments? Given how much Evil-prone the True Neutral alignment actually allows for, that would imply that newborn kids are rather nasty creatures. Given how we usually view infants (the exemplar of innocence and closely related to goodness), it would be more realistic to envision that children are born Neutral Good (Law and Chaos are particularly hard to connect to children who cannot even talk, much less understand the concept of laws or even remember them).

But I think it's hard, altogether, to kinda classify children alignmentwise. Much like the personality disorders in real-life human psychiatry, which you should be cautious diagnosing in youngsters because their personality isn't yet fully fleshed out and consolidated.

However, this interesting strip illuminates Nale's alignment, even from childhood: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html
Even in diapers, Nale smacks his brother (possibly repeatedly, and seemingly unprovoked). And he does so with a determined facial expression (heck, he even has an Evil goatee already!!!) that indicates that Elan-smacking isn't just childrens' play, it's a voluntary act of hurting his own brother.

So, given that Elan and Nale are near-identical twins (the goatee, and the alignment that follows it, sets them apart) and presumably got the same basic upbringing before their parents' divorce - it might be that Nale was Evil (and Elan was Good) from a very, very early stage of their lives, possibly from the fetal stage or even from conception.
How this is to be explained, genetics-wise, I'm not sure. Perhaps your basic alignment is determined by a certain cellular organelle or particle, and at that time when the zygote that developed into both Elan and Nale (they're monozygotic twins) split apart, the alignment-particle was unevenly distributed so that Elan became Good and Nale became Evil.

Or - maybe modern genetics isn't really meant to be used in the DnD or OOTS universe. Maybe that....

I think its a bit of both. Nale might have been a bad egg from the start, but he could have been a better and maybe even a good person if he had a better upbringing. Instead he had a dad who encouraged his ruthlessness and selfish behaviour, whilst simultaneously trying to shape him into a tool for his own plans and not really showing him any respect. Nale was acting out because he wanted to show that he could do his own thing, his own way, and he could do it without some plan of Tarquin that was for the ultimate benefit of Tarquin. And the whole nepotism thing he threw at his dad suggests that Tarquin kept showering him with promotions that even Nale didn't think he deserved; say what you want about Nale, but at least he wanted to earn his success.

[hamishspence]

Maybe it's more "empathic" than "selfless".

A person who feels emotional pain when they see another person being hurt- is compassionate- because they are empathic. But to be "selfless" they must be prepared to do things to help that other person- at no gain, and possibly some cost, to themselves.

[Edhelras]

Right! Cutest comic ever! (http://http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0496.html)
Made me smile so much, feel so warm inside... :smallsmile:

So, at least infant Eric and infant Nale are examples of either proven or highly suspected infants with a very-early established alignment - Eric even to that degree that he was allowed into the LG afterlife.

This might also shed some light on other issues of "can you yourself choose your alignment in DnD/OOTSverse?" For instance those poor "innocent" goblin kids that were slaughtered by the Azurite paladins: Possibly, the were actually of Evil alignment - and registered as so by the Detect Evil ability for the paladins - even though they were ALSO innocent youngsters.

Anyway, if alignment is something you have from your birth, or from a stage of your life prior to your achieving rational thought and fully developed language, then the process of "finding your own path" might in some characters imply the very troublesome process of deviating from and breaking with your given alignment. Whereas for others, it simply requires sticking to that alignment which you were given, whether it was Evil or Good or what.

[Kid Jake]

Hi there!

Interesting question - WHEN does one, in DnD, actually acquire an alignment? Are you born with it, or do you develop it during childhood and young adulthood? Are everybody True Neutral at birth, and then deviate into one of the 9 alignments? Given how much Evil-prone the True Neutral alignment actually allows for, that would imply that newborn kids are rather nasty creatures. Given how we usually view infants (the exemplar of innocence and closely related to goodness), it would be more realistic to envision that children are born Neutral Good (Law and Chaos are particularly hard to connect to children who cannot even talk, much less understand the concept of laws or even remember them).



I'd say True Neutral fits an infant perfectly. They only care about their bellies and their amusement. Babies lie, cheat and steal the second they learn how; hell I've seen toddlers kill little animals because they find it funny. They don't know any better so they aren't evil, but they're definitely not altruistic little angels.

[Captain Morgan]

Compassion is pretty much the definition of selflessness. That it feels warm and fuzzy inside doesn't make it selfish, because you don't act compassionate for the sake of that. You feel warm and fuzzy because you are compassionate.

A man might feel good from burning some villages down for no reason, or he might feel terrible; neither makes it selfless.

At least, that's the case for deep, genuine compassion, with substance. There may be people who act compassionate because they've heard it does good things for them, just like there are people who act bad for the same reasons, or because they think its pragmatic. But compassion in and of itself is inherently selfless, by definition, regardless of the reasons you got into it. If you are only acting compassionate because it makes you feel good then you're compassion is lacking.

I certainly don't think he respects Nale; that's kind of the problem, after all. Or if he does, his idea of respect is twisted (which is possible, I guess).

Basically either Tarquin doesn't really love his sons at all, or his love is so weak it doesn't really matter. Either way, the first poster was saying he wasn't cold, and he absolutely is.

Though I'm open to the possibility that he is playing a longer game, and expects Nale to come back from death.

I don't know if I'd call what Tarquin feels for his sons "compassion", especially since it literally means "co-suffering"; that is, he feels their pain, which he pretty obviously does not. But whatever love he has, if that's what it is, is pretty shallow regardless.

He can kill Nale out of both pragmatism and spite; people usually have more than one reason for doing things. If he wants revenge for Malack then I'd call that spite anyway, but I'm pretty sure the whole thing with Nale disowning his father and all but spitting in his face counts too.


I think its a bit of both. Nale might have been a bad egg from the start, but he could have been a better and maybe even a good person if he had a better upbringing. Instead he had a dad who encouraged his ruthlessness and selfish behaviour, whilst simultaneously trying to shape him into a tool for his own plans and not really showing him any respect. Nale was acting out because he wanted to show that he could do his own thing, his own way, and he could do it without some plan of Tarquin that was for the ultimate benefit of Tarquin. And the whole nepotism thing he threw at his dad suggests that Tarquin kept showering him with promotions that even Nale didn't think he deserved; say what you want about Nale, but at least he wanted to earn his success.

Tarquin is certainly cold, but I don't think killing Nale had much to do with defying him or he would have done it years ago. I don't feel like you can call it narcissism so much as it ruthless adherence to his own code of conduct. Tarquin isn't capable of compassion generally, but I think he does feel it for his sons and his party. Remember, Nale said that he wanted to not be treated like a son anymore, and Tarquin finally respected that. And then did what he would do to anyone who murdered his best friend who also wasn't his son.

It's like Malack trying to talk Durkon down from fighting before killing him. Durkon was righteous in that scene, but he wasn't compassionate. Compassion also means sympathy for those have you wrong you or others. Yeah, Malack wasn't GOOD there, but he felt compassion and respect enough for Durkon to try really hard to avoid conflict, and then respected Durkon's dying wishes later. Malack and Tarquin are evil but not as one dimensional as you seem to be painting them here. And Nale's execution is pretty low on the actual evil scale for what they carry out on a regular basis.

EDIT: I mean, let's say Tarquin was a good guy, and Nale was still evil. Nale still betrayed him multiple times, killed his subjects, and murdered his best friend and bragged about it. If Tarquin was a paladin, wouldn't execution be the "good" option, despite Nale being his son?

[Edhelras]

I think its a bit of both. Nale might have been a bad egg from the start, but he could have been a better and maybe even a good person if he had a better upbringing. Instead he had a dad who encouraged his ruthlessness and selfish behaviour, whilst simultaneously trying to shape him into a tool for his own plans and not really showing him any respect. Nale was acting out because he wanted to show that he could do his own thing, his own way, and he could do it without some plan of Tarquin that was for the ultimate benefit of Tarquin. And the whole nepotism thing he threw at his dad suggests that Tarquin kept showering him with promotions that even Nale didn't think he deserved; say what you want about Nale, but at least he wanted to earn his success.

I agree that Nale seems to be the product of bad parenting from Tarquin's side. A combination of "I was never good (not Good, though!) enough for you!", combined with getting rewarded or favorized all the time, despite realizing that he didn't deserve it.

However, my point was that Nale was clearly Evil (that's how I interpret the Elan-smacking, cf. the debate concerning Durkon's gleeful (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)killing of helpless Z'ddittri)) even from before the time where he was separeted from his identical twin brother - and, presumably, before the systematic difference in upbringing was imposed on the brothers.
What would have happened if Tarquin had taken Elan along after the divorce, instead of Nale? Hypothetical question, and improbably since neither parent would likely have wanted to keep the one sibling with opposite alignment from themselves. But I somehow suspect that Nale would've become Evil all the same, whereas Elan's goodiness might have survived even growing up with Tarquin and his team (his dim wit would've saved him from being influenced by the bad guys, I guess...).

[BlackDragonKing]

I'd say True Neutral fits an infant perfectly. They only care about their bellies and their amusement. Babies lie, cheat and steal the second they learn how; hell I've seen toddlers kill little animals because they find it funny. They don't know any better so they aren't evil, but they're definitely not altruistic little angels.

Well, babies are also believed capable of making moral judgements at a surprisingly young age according to some early psychological studies. Using puppets and stuffed animals to demonstrate little skits of moral or immoral behavior, babies seem to (usually, there is some variance) express a preference for the "good" stuffed animal after the scenes are played out over the "bad" one, but another variation means that some babies also continue to prefer the "good" one if it punishes the one who was "bad".

So there are some signs that babies can distinguish a good act from a bad one early on, but internalizing it is a matter that comes with growing up. I would agree, True Neutral fits that well, but just saying babies likely can recognize altruism in some form. :smallsmile:

[masamune1]

Tarquin is certainly cold, but I don't think killing Nale had much to do with defying him or he would have done it years ago. I don't feel like you can call it narcissism so much as it ruthless adherence to his own code of conduct. Tarquin isn't capable of compassion generally, but I think he does feel it for his sons and his party. Remember, Nale said that he wanted to not be treated like a son anymore, and Tarquin finally respected that. And then did what he would do to anyone who murdered his best friend who also wasn't his son.

It's like Malack trying to talk Durkon down from fighting before killing him. Durkon was righteous in that scene, but he wasn't compassionate. Compassion also means sympathy for those have you wrong you or others. Yeah, Malack wasn't GOOD there, but he felt compassion and respect enough for Durkon to try really hard to avoid conflict, and then respected Durkon's dying wishes later. Malack and Tarquin are evil but not as one dimensional as you seem to be painting them here. And Nale's execution is pretty low on the actual evil scale for what they carry out on a regular basis.

EDIT: I mean, let's say Tarquin was a good guy, and Nale was still evil. Nale still betrayed him multiple times, killed his subjects, and murdered his best friend and bragged about it. If Tarquin was a paladin, wouldn't execution be the "good" option, despite Nale being his son?

I'm not trying to paint them as one-dimensional. It seems more a question of semantics. I would hesitate to call those things compassion. Its the stuff they do on a regular basis that makes me doubt they are really capable of any meaningful compassion. Compassion generally implies a certain level of empathy as perquisite. Killing Nale doesn't surprise me at all, because he doesn't have empathy..

Narcissism is a broad term, but Tarquin is definitely a narcissist. He is a sophisticated, high-functioning narcissist, but a narcissist all the same. He is manipulative, self-centred, lacking in empathy, thinks his kids should dance to his tune, is preoccupied with success, glory and power, thinks he can have any woman he desires, wants giant statues of himself built....yeah, he is a narcissist. He is also a sociopath- if a principled sociopath-, as well as a sadist. Most villains have shades of all three, and he is no different. Feeling some mild allegiance to his family doesn't change that.



I agree that Nale seems to be the product of bad parenting from Tarquin's side. A combination of "I was never good (not Good, though!) enough for you!", combined with getting rewarded or favorized all the time, despite realizing that he didn't deserve it.

However, my point was that Nale was clearly Evil (that's how I interpret the Elan-smacking, cf. the debate concerning Durkon's gleeful (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0908.html)killing of helpless Z'ddittri)) even from before the time where he was separeted from his identical twin brother - and, presumably, before the systematic difference in upbringing was imposed on the brothers.
What would have happened if Tarquin had taken Elan along after the divorce, instead of Nale? Hypothetical question, and improbably since neither parent would likely have wanted to keep the one sibling with opposite alignment from themselves. But I somehow suspect that Nale would've become Evil all the same, whereas Elan's goodiness might have survived even growing up with Tarquin and his team (his dim wit would've saved him from being influenced by the bad guys, I guess...).

Kids smacking their brothers doesn't make them evil. It happens all the time.

[Kish]

Tarquin is not cold. Xykon is not skeletal. Roy is not bald, Elan is not stupid, and Redcloak is not a goblin.

[The Pilgrim]

Tarquin is not cold. Xykon is not skeletal. Roy is not bald, Elan is not stupid, and Redcloak is not a goblin.

Of course not. Redcloak is too tall to be a Goblin.

[Captain Morgan]

I'm not trying to paint them as one-dimensional. It seems more a question of semantics. I would hesitate to call those things compassion. Its the stuff they do on a regular basis that makes me doubt they are really capable of any meaningful compassion. Compassion generally implies a certain level of empathy as perquisite. Killing Nale doesn't surprise me at all, because he doesn't have empathy..

Narcissism is a broad term, but Tarquin is definitely a narcissist. He is a sophisticated, high-functioning narcissist, but a narcissist all the same. He is manipulative, self-centred, lacking in empathy, thinks his kids should dance to his tune, is preoccupied with success, glory and power, thinks he can have any woman he desires, wants giant statues of himself built....yeah, he is a narcissist. He is also a sociopath- if a principled sociopath-, as well as a sadist. Most villains have shades of all three, and he is no different. Feeling some mild allegiance to his family doesn't change that.


I guess I should have phrased that better. I don't mean that Tarquin isn't narcissistic or socipathic. He has proven that. I don't think killing Nale especially epitomized those traits though.

And I would say his allegiance to his family is more than mild, to be honest. He is willing to have Elan KILL him. Which also happens to suit his purposes, but it seems to me that he does love his kids. Heck, the love itself isn't that twisted, it ALMOST borders on unconditional. It's just everything else about the guy is so freaking evil.

[The Pilgrim]

but it seems to me that he does love his kids. Heck, the love itself isn't that twisted, it ALMOST borders on unconditional. It's just everything else about the guy is so freaking evil.

Yeah, I could see that...

"Today in the Parents Magazine:

A new revolutionary trend on parenting: Improve your relationship with you kids by murdering them. 9 out of 10 parenting guides advice it. (pag 5)

Keep hold on your kids, drive them to a death-duel with yourself. (pag 12)

The greeks already invented everything: Follow the Aedipus Way. (pag 25)

Tarquin's Tips: Abandoning children builds character. (pag 30)"


You know... No. Just, No.

[BlackDragonKing]

I guess I should have phrased that better. I don't mean that Tarquin isn't narcissistic or socipathic. He has proven that. I don't think killing Nale especially epitomized those traits though.

And I would say his allegiance to his family is more than mild, to be honest. He is willing to have Elan KILL him. Which also happens to suit his purposes, but it seems to me that he does love his kids. Heck, the love itself isn't that twisted, it ALMOST borders on unconditional. It's just everything else about the guy is so freaking evil.

Eh. While I believe Tarquin is capable of genuine friendship and so on, I do think he's an evil overlord first and everything else, including a father, second.

"Son of evil overlord" translates fairly directly to "threat to evil overlord", which is bad. Then on top of it, Nale is "disappointment to evil overlord", which translates REALLY directly to "murder victim of evil overlord".

So Tarquin showed considerably more restraint than many evil parents in his situation would out of whatever strange affection he had for his progeny, but his inclination and his true nature were fighting every breath Nale took as long as we've known him, and Nale's actions meant Tarquin's inclination shrugged its shoulders and left Nale to Tarquin's nonexistent mercy.

Tarquin is considerably more patient than most evil fathers would be, especially with a son like Nale, but he's still an evil father with an emphasis on EVIL.

[masamune1]

I guess I should have phrased that better. I don't mean that Tarquin isn't narcissistic or socipathic. He has proven that. I don't think killing Nale especially epitomized those traits though.

And I would say his allegiance to his family is more than mild, to be honest. He is willing to have Elan KILL him. Which also happens to suit his purposes, but it seems to me that he does love his kids. Heck, the love itself isn't that twisted, it ALMOST borders on unconditional. It's just everything else about the guy is so freaking evil.

I think Elan killing him in a climatic duel might be Plan B. I think he'd prefer Elan to join him so they can rule the Orderworld as father and son, and Elan can inherit (probably with manipulative advisors who make sure the empires stay evil). Plan C of course is that Tarquin kills Elan in said duel. I mean, just this issue he was telling Nale that he was trying to manipulate Elan into carrying out his agenda.

Of course, Tarquin doesn't know the meaning of love, and when he says "I love you" he's usually being manipulative. That should at least be kept in mind. If and when Elan kills him it will be after he's lived like a god for ten years and ensured that his name will live forever; he also expected Malack to take over afterwards and turn his tyrannical regime into a continental death camp, so either he wanted Elan / Nale to kill Malack and take over- once they have learnt to rule his way-, or he was willing to let Malack kill them. Shows what family and friendship means to him.

And yes, Nale has those traits too. If anything he has them worse, and you can add paranoia and histrionics to that list as well. Nale is dysfunctional- he is so sociopathic and narcissistic that he can barely keep his life in order and none of his plans work out like he wants. In a normal society he would be in jail or dead; Tarquin though might actually be a President.

[hamishspence]

"Son of evil overlord" translates fairly directly to "threat to evil overlord", which is bad. Then on top of it, Nale is "disappointment to evil overlord", which translates REALLY directly to "murder victim of evil overlord".

So Tarquin showed considerably more restraint than many evil parents in his situation would out of whatever strange affection he had for his progeny, but his inclination and his true nature were fighting every breath Nale took as long as we've known him, and Nale's actions meant Tarquin's inclination shrugged its shoulders and left Nale to Tarquin's nonexistent mercy.

Tarquin is considerably more patient than most evil fathers would be, especially with a son like Nale, but he's still an evil father with an emphasis on EVIL.

Yup. Ming, from Flash Gordon, seemed rather less patient- deeming execution "too kind" a method of dealing with rebellious offspring, and using exile as a substitute.

[Aolbain]

I remember when Tarquin said that it was weird how people kept cheering for Thog, no matter how many people he killed.

Even back then, it applied to Tarquin himself as well.

I really do think you're supposed to have some sympathy for Nale in this chapter, if only a little. Tarquin asks Nale what he wants from him, and Nale says "NOTHING!" and then goes on a rant about all Tarquin's nepotism and crappy parenting. Nale is the way he is because his dad never treated him as anything other than a pawn his entire life. Nale isn't a good person and he pretty much had it coming, but Tarquin is worse and he pretty much made it clear that he was more concerned about his "gang" than his own sons (remember he's willing to kill Elan too, in a fight to the death, if Elan isn't good enough to kill him). Even his gang is really best friends second, useful assets first.

Nale is the way he is because he is tired of being used, treated as a legacy or a pawn, always told what to do in order to benefit Tarquin or one of his convoluted schemes. Becoming an evil villain in his own right wasn't exactly the most righteous path to take, but the reason he needs to rub everybody's face in his victories is that Tarquin and his buddies have been ignoring or abusing him his entire life.

And Tarquin is so selfish and sociopathic that he either doesn't notice or care. Tarquin feels precisely zero compassion for either of his kids, because compassion by definition is unconditional love. Murdering Nale because he ranted at him and killed somebody who was trying to kill him (though really more for the rant, because Tarquin was willing to let the last one side) proves that Tarquin's "love" was pretty damn conditional. Tarquin is a glorified (if cultured) thug (for some reason I keep thinking "biker gang") who is more worried about how his son will embarrass him in front of his friends than his own sons life, and in order to save face after Nale disowned him and killed Malack was to murder him. Not because he had to (a man like Tarquin has plenty of options, and Nale is unlikely to be a serious threat, even after killing Malack), but because it was just the most straightforward option- and, knowing Tarquin, because it makes him look more villainous, especially since Elan is there.

Of course, its possible Nale will be resurrected by Sabine, but we'll have to wait to see if Tarquin takes any steps to prevent that or not.

Oh, and hi everyone! That's my first post. Nice to be here.

This (and your other post in this threads) sums up my feeling on Tarquin pretty well.

[Issabella]

I still see it as Nale is too stupid/egomaniacal to live. His father still tried to give him an out after Nale Killed Malak and taunted a Psion powerful enough to move an army...

[Captain Morgan]

I think Elan killing him in a climatic duel might be Plan B. I think he'd prefer Elan to join him so they can rule the Orderworld as father and son, and Elan can inherit (probably with manipulative advisors who make sure the empires stay evil). Plan C of course is that Tarquin kills Elan in said duel. I mean, just this issue he was telling Nale that he was trying to manipulate Elan into carrying out his agenda.

We don't really have anything to indicate Tarquin can't be taken at this word that he is OK with being offed eventually. According to the narrative forces he and Elan believe in, it's the most likely way for him to end. The guy is going to die eventually. And we have nothing to indicate that he has the desire to become some sort of undying Xykon like creature, though it is probably within his ability to arrange.


Of course, Tarquin doesn't know the meaning of love, and when he says "I love you" he's usually being manipulative. That should at least be kept in mind.

I feel like no on knows the definition of love, is the thing. And he may also manipulate those he loves, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about them.


If and when Elan kills him it will be after he's lived like a god for ten years and ensured that his name will live forever; he also expected Malack to take over afterwards and turn his tyrannical regime into a continental death camp, so either he wanted Elan / Nale to kill Malack and take over- once they have learnt to rule his way-, or he was willing to let Malack kill them. Shows what family and friendship means to him.

I think it was 30 years. And I figure letting Malack and Elan settle things between each other after Tarquin is gone actually seems fair and impartial to Tarquin's very corrupt mind.




Eh. While I believe Tarquin is capable of genuine friendship and so on, I do think he's an evil overlord first and everything else, including a father, second.

True.


"Son of evil overlord" translates fairly directly to "threat to evil overlord", which is bad. Then on top of it, Nale is "disappointment to evil overlord", which translates REALLY directly to "murder victim of evil overlord".

Again, Nale's actions basically called for a swift execution from even a good overlord. Dude had basically established himself as a mad dog who had repeatedly rebuffed mercy. Killing Nale was actually just letting Nale in the bed he made.



Tarquin is considerably more patient than most evil fathers would be, especially with a son like Nale, but he's still an evil father with an emphasis on EVIL.

Also true. But again, I must point that while Tarquin is evil, killing his son was not even in the top 10 evil things he did that week.

[SavageWombat]

But again, I must point that while Tarquin is evil, killing his son was not even in the top 10 evil things he did that week.

Was it Tuesday?

[BlackDragonKing]

Also true. But again, I must point that while Tarquin is evil, killing his son was not even in the top 10 evil things he did that week.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

Tarquin's done a lot of wicked, evil, nasty things since we've met him, but delivering Nale's karmic death (or assisting his suicide, depending on how you want to look at how STUPID he was acting) was not even in the top twenty. :smallwink:

[masamune1]

We don't really have anything to indicate Tarquin can't be taken at this word that he is OK with being offed eventually. According to the narrative forces he and Elan believe in, it's the most likely way for him to end. The guy is going to die eventually. And we have nothing to indicate that he has the desire to become some sort of undying Xykon like creature, though it is probably within his ability to arrange.



I feel like no on knows the definition of love, is the thing. And he may also manipulate those he loves, but that doesn't mean he doesn't care about them.



I think it was 30 years. And I figure letting Malack and Elan settle things between each other after Tarquin is gone actually seems fair and impartial to Tarquin's very corrupt mind.





He might be OK with being offed eventually, but I don't think he's quite as trustworthy as he might first appear. Letting Malack inherit the continent is a little at odds with his apparent hopes that Nale or Elan would either join or overthrow him (he didn't say he looks forward to the climatic duel until after Elan openly turned against him; even then, he tried to convince Elan that what he was doing was for the good of the people, which itself is at odds with his promise to Malack). He manipulates and betrays and ultimately murders a succession of puppet rulers and treats everyone around him as pawns. I don't think anything he says should be taken at face-value. Seems to me he just has a number of insurance policies in place so that his name will live forever.

And yes, we actually do have a decent idea of what love is. People like Tarquin are often used in psychology as examples of somebody lacking in it, for a contrast.

And Tarquin just told Nale that his plan was to show the others that Nale can be competent and, thus, use that to convince the rest of his team to get Malack to drop his fued. So "letting Malack and Elan settle things between each other after Tarquin is gone" wasn't really his plan at all.

[Captain Morgan]

He might be OK with being offed eventually, but I don't think he's quite as trustworthy as he might first appear. Letting Malack inherit the continent is a little at odds with his apparent hopes that Nale or Elan would either join or overthrow him (he didn't say he looks forward to the climatic duel until after Elan openly turned against him; even then, he tried to convince Elan that what he was doing was for the good of the people, which itself is at odds with his promise to Malack). He manipulates and betrays and ultimately murders a succession of puppet rulers and treats everyone around him as pawns. I don't think anything he says should be taken at face-value. Seems to me he just has a number of insurance policies in place so that his name will live forever.

And yes, we actually do have a decent idea of what love is. People like Tarquin are often used in psychology as examples of somebody lacking in it, for a contrast.

And Tarquin just told Nale that his plan was to show the others that Nale can be competent and, thus, use that to convince the rest of his team to get Malack to drop his fued. So "letting Malack and Elan settle things between each other after Tarquin is gone" wasn't really his plan at all.

At this point you have sort of highlighted the fact that we really don't know what Tarquin's intentions are for his various relationships or even his overarching scheme. That sort of makes speaking definitively about him on anything kind of hard, don't you think?

Also, we really don't have a universal definition of love. Modern psychology alone has all sorts of different theories and definitions, to say nothing of various cultural definitions. And it is ultimately a subjective, individual based feeling that we have yet to be able to scientifically measure. It's also incredibly difficult for many people to figure out if they actually love someone when it comes down to brass tacks. And most of the time love is inspired by some feature a person has, or a feeling they elicit in us. I love my friends because they are cool people that make me happy to be around, but if they were not cool people I would not hang around them and they would not be my friends.

Tarquin loves his sons just because they are his sons. Even when they outright try to murder him, which both have, he still loves them. Yes, he also manipulates them. But if he didn't have attachments to them, why even bother doing that?

That's the thing about love. It isn't always healthy for all parties involved, or even any parties involved. From Tarquin's own selfish perspective, he has no real reason to care for his children enough to even bother incorporating them into his very evil schemes. And yet he does. He expresses his love by incorporating his children into his evil plans because he is an evil person, and is too self-absorbed to give the plans up to be with them. But he can't let them go either, and even if there role is to kill him and his friends or die trying, he wants them in his life.

It's an unhealthy love, from a monstrous man, but it has less conditions than most of the love we experience I warrant.

[masamune1]

At this point you have sort of highlighted the fact that we really don't know what Tarquin's intentions are for his various relationships or even his overarching scheme. That sort of makes speaking definitively about him on anything kind of hard, don't you think?

Also, we really don't have a universal definition of love. Modern psychology alone has all sorts of different theories and definitions, to say nothing of various cultural definitions. And it is ultimately a subjective, individual based feeling that we have yet to be able to scientifically measure. It's also incredibly difficult for many people to figure out if they actually love someone when it comes down to brass tacks. And most of the time love is inspired by some feature a person has, or a feeling they elicit in us. I love my friends because they are cool people that make me happy to be around, but if they were not cool people I would not hang around them and they would not be my friends.

Tarquin loves his sons just because they are his sons. Even when they outright try to murder him, which both have, he still loves them. Yes, he also manipulates them. But if he didn't have attachments to them, why even bother doing that?

That's the thing about love. It isn't always healthy for all parties involved, or even any parties involved. From Tarquin's own selfish perspective, he has no real reason to care for his children enough to even bother incorporating them into his very evil schemes. And yet he does. He expresses his love by incorporating his children into his evil plans because he is an evil person, and is too self-absorbed to give the plans up to be with them. But he can't let them go either, and even if there role is to kill him and his friends or die trying, he wants them in his life.

It's an unhealthy love, from a monstrous man, but it has less conditions than most of the love we experience I warrant.

We do have a pretty good idea of what love is. There are different types of love, and we experience them to different depths and with different levels of substance, but we do know what they are. We've had thousands of years to discuss it. People might not love someone as much as they think, or as little as they think, or the way they think they do, but that's a question of individual experience. It doesn't mean that we don't know the difference between different types of love, or when something else is masquerading as it.

Tarquin has all the characteristics of a sociopath. He is not capable of the normal type of love most parents feel for their children, or for anybody else. His love has a shallowness to it, which is how he is able to do such terrible things to his family and "friends", insofar as they are his friends. Its also narcissistic, since he thinks he can use them as pawns in his plans and just assumes that they would like the same stuff he does, even if its horrific or for his own gain. We actually do know how people like that think, and "loving" isn't a word psychologists tend to use when describing them except to say that they aren't capable of love as we know it.

Anything else is semantics. But calling it "love", or at least calling it compassion, is about as meaningful as calling it a stone. People might have different subjective definitions and experiences of love but it doesn't mean that there isn't a generally accepted meaning of the word- or at least meanings-, just like there is for anger, hate, fear, happiness and other emotions. And an evil murderous tyrant who stabs his son in the chest or forces his other son to watch gladiatorial blood sports doesn't really fall under that.

But I get the feeling this might snowball into a bad argument, so lets just leave it at that.

[Warren Dew]

Nale denied he was his son. Tarquin accepted that decision, even asking 'are you sure?'. Once he denied he was his son, he became just another pawn. A pawn that had killed his best friend he had spent a long life with. There was only one real end for that kind of rebellious pawn.
That's one interpretation, and pretty close to my own.

However, there's another interpretation that also fits the fact we know. Once Tarquin's protection was withdrawn, the rest of his party would have taken their vengeance on Nale for Malack, likely in the form of a highly painful death. Tarquin might have killed Nale to give him a quicker and less painful ending, which could even be argued to be merciful.

Supporting the latter is the fact that, from a pragmatic viewpoint, allowing his teammates to kill Nale would have reinforced their bonds with Tarquin more than denying them that pleasure would.

[Captain Morgan]

We do have a pretty good idea of what love is. There are different types of love, and we experience them to different depths and with different levels of substance, but we do know what they are. We've had thousands of years to discuss it. People might not love someone as much as they think, or as little as they think, or the way they think they do, but that's a question of individual experience. It doesn't mean that we don't know the difference between different types of love, or when something else is masquerading as it..

OK, then can you provide a clinical definition of love? Saying we know what it is is meaningless if you can't actually define it. Again, you keep saying we know what it is but you haven't actually explained what that is.



Anything else is semantics. But calling it "love", or at least calling it compassion, is about as meaningful as calling it a stone. People might have different subjective definitions and experiences of love but it doesn't mean that there isn't a generally accepted meaning of the word- or at least meanings-, just like there is for anger, hate, fear, happiness and other emotions. And an evil murderous tyrant who stabs his son in the chest or forces his other son to watch gladiatorial blood sports doesn't really fall under that.

People do all sorts of cruel stuff to love though. I mean if you want to say that semantically Tarquin doesn't love his children, fine, but he clearly has some sort of attachment to them. If he didn't, there's no logical reason to expend so much energy on them. If it isn't love, what is that? What is love to begin with anyway?

[Parallel Pain]

I've followed the comic for years. I've bought all the books as part of Kickstarter drive. I am finally here to post once, after reading this update and this thread.

When I read everything I was suddenly reminded of a deleted scene from the movie Thor. The comic book hero one. You can find this scene on Youtube.

Thor had just about caused an all out war. For this Odin exiled Thor to Earth. In the deleted scene, Frigga come yelling and screaming to Odin for exiling their son and heir.
Odin asked Frigga what she would have done. Frigga said she wouldn't have exiled Thor without his powers. She wouldn't have had the heart.
Odin's rely: That is why I am King.

Odin is LG, and Tarquin is LE, but let's look at it side by side.

He has built up a fantastic, powerful realm at its height.
He has son(s) who he has high hopes for.
His son then does something incredibly stupid that threaten to throw his realm into chaos.
He then scolds his son and try to make him see his own folly, but his son will have none of it.
Finally, he very harshly punishes his son.

Odin exiles Thor hoping he would learn and be better. He does and comes back to his father's welcome arms. What about Tarquin?

Nale is exiled (probably on both Tarquin's orders and his own wishes) for killing Malack's children. It undoubtedly caused friction within Tarquin's team. If Tarquin had just let Nale stayed everything Tarquin had worked for would have fell apart. Not only that, he would have lost 5 life long friends, who possibly would have turned on him and force him to fight to protect his son. Malack, being a cleric, probably saved his life at some point in the past as well.

So I see Tarquin as simply being forced to choose between his best friends and empire on the one hand and his rebellious son on the other. He chose friends and empire. But he chose it in a way that gave Nale a chance to go out and learn and stay alive.

Unlike Thor, Nale comes back and demonstrates that he has not grown one bit. Nale then kills Malack, Tarquin's best friend who has probably saved his life at some point. By doing so Nale forced Tarquin into the same situation two years ago: the empire and (now 4) best friends, or a rebellious son.

He was prepared to make the same choice he made two years ago too. He chose empire and best friends, but in a way that his son would have been alive and given a chance to further learn and grow. He did learn that Nale didn't grow on his own, so this time he would keep Nale beside him to offer guidance.

Except then Nale made it clear he would only ever be the rebellious son. So there was no wiggling out of this one. So Tarquin stuck to his choice of his realm and his life-long friends.


Was this a cold choice? Maybe to some. But I don't see it.

When playing mediator between two people one love, one try to have both sides give concession. Sometimes it gets to the point that neither side would, and one is forced to choose one side or loose both. How does one choose then?

Who's more in the right?
Who's emotionally closer?
Who's closer by blood relationship?
Which choice would be the least damaging?

These are some common things that influence one's decision. Notice out of those four, 1 and 4 are firmly against Nale, and 2 is at best (for Nale) a toss up. Only 3 is firmly on Nale's side.

This makes Tarquin's decision to side with his realm and his friends not only perfectly reasonable but also perfectly human. If we chose random people and gave them this choice, I wouldn't be surprised if over half the population chose as Tarquin did.

The only thing that differentiate this from everyday life is Tarquin executing his son. Tarquin is after all LE.
But Nale already made it clear he would not learn and grow but continue being rebellious. And Nale killed Marlack. The other members of Tarquin's team would, very reasonably, go "No! You're not letting him live! You did last time and Marlack died because of it!"


And first post?

[hamishspence]

Nale is exiled (probably on both Tarquin's orders and his own wishes) for killing Malack's children. It undoubtedly caused friction within Tarquin's team. If Tarquin had just let Nale stayed everything Tarquin had worked for would have fell apart. Not only that, he would have lost 5 life long friends, who possibly would have turned on him and force him to fight to protect his son. Malack, being a cleric, probably saved his life at some point in the past as well.

It's possible that the argument over who should rule the Empire of Blood, was the main reason for Nale leaving:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

[Parallel Pain]

It's possible that the argument over who should rule the Empire of Blood, was the main reason for Nale leaving:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.htmlI always assume it is the same incident. Nale tried to take over the empire and Marlack's children died during the coup. There's no evidence either way but it's logical.

[The Pilgrim]

Also true. But again, I must point that while Tarquin is evil, killing his son was not even in the top 10 evil things he did that week.

I don't know if killing Nale has been in his Top 10 evil things. But is Top 1 in the list of things he has done that demonstrate his dehumanization and psychopatic nature. Outclassing even the wife-raping issue.

[SavageWombat]

Do we know that Nale was officially "exiled"? I have the feeling that Nale fled when his coup failed - it's in character - and Tarquin declared him an exile rather than have to track him down and execute him

That way he could claim "justice" to his team without violating his own desires.

[Parallel Pain]

I don't know if killing Nale has been in his Top 10 evil things. But is Top 1 in the list of things he has done that demonstrate his dehumanization and psychopatic nature. Outclassing even the wife-raping issue.To me, this act humanized him by forcing him to make tough choices and him choosing how many people would for the same reasons.


Do we know that Nale was officially "exiled"? I have the feeling that Nale fled when his coup failed - it's in character - and Tarquin declared him an exile rather than have to track him down and execute him

That way he could claim "justice" to his team without violating his own desires.I think so as well.
But whether or not Nale was officially exiled on Tarquins orders still meant he was declared an outlaw of the realm but not actively hunted down as Malack and others would obviously have wanted.

[Chad30]

I don't know if killing Nale has been in his Top 10 evil things. But is Top 1 in the list of things he has done that demonstrate his dehumanization and psychopatic nature. Outclassing even the wife-raping issue.

Honestly I don't know if I'd even call killing Nale an evil act. I'm in the group that thinks even a good aligned person would probably kill him. I mean assuming he hadn't already crossed the moral event horizon, I don't think killing Nale would be crossing it.

[Paseo H]

Honestly I don't know if I'd even call killing Nale an evil act. I'm in the group that thinks even a good aligned person would probably kill him. I mean assuming he hadn't already crossed the moral event horizon, I don't think killing Nale would be crossing it.

I'm choosing to quote yours, but this is to all the "this wasn't that evil."

By the 'cold calculus,' having one less monster like Nale in the world is probably for the best.

What makes this an act of pure evil, in my opinion, is the intent.

If Tarquin meant it as vengeance for Malack, which would be pretty terrible in itself because Malack promised horrifying, cruel evil as the end result of his own imperial reign, he would not have given Nale a chance to be brought to heel.

Tarquin only killed Nale because Nale denied him.

I'd say killing anyone, most of all your own blood, simply for the sake of narcissistic ambition, is very much one of the many definitions of evil.

[BlackDragonKing]

I don't know if killing Nale has been in his Top 10 evil things. But is Top 1 in the list of things he has done that demonstrate his dehumanization and psychopatic nature. Outclassing even the wife-raping issue.

I don't agree, personally. Killing Nale was just pragmatic. A lot of Chaotic Good characters that follow the "bad things unto bad people" interpretation of Chaotic Good would have killed Nale and letting him live would be a Stupid act more than a sane or psychotic one.

Murdering an idiot would-be usurper who was bragging about killing your best friend barely even registers compared to the wife-raping or the slave-bonfire. As I said, Nale's death isn't even likely in the top 20 for Tarquin's evil deeds.

[Mike Havran]

I wouldn't call Nale's rant a "denial". Nale was denying Tarquin, either secretly or openly, for most of his known life. And Tarquin still protected him despite of it.

In 913, Nale refused to reason when he was in the most unfavorable circumstances imaginable, declared open and eternal hostility and provided a proof he is indeed a formidable threat. Doing anything less than killing him would be a proof of weakness, something LE abhors.

[Talvereaux]

I'm pretty sure he is cold. He's not an irredeemably evil sociopath for killing Nale, but for all of his war crimes and for killing and torturing slaves and prisoners to either stay in power or in just as many cases, for his own personal amusement.

If anything, the fact he's been more generous to Nale is just one aspect of his "coldness". He put Nale's life, comfort, and well-being on a pedestal to the very end because he's his own flesh and blood. He was perfectly willing to let Malack and Laurin, two of his closest friends and longest standing allies, suffer and get repeatedly cheated so Nale could get away with actions that no sane person would be able to justify. That's because Tarquin is not a sane person. He thinks he and his family are the only things that matter, and would feel no qualms or regrets in the rest of the world, his adventuring party included, burning if it means he and his sons can be happy and comfortable.

[The Pilgrim]

I don't agree, personally. Killing Nale was just pragmatic. A lot of Chaotic Good characters that follow the "bad things unto bad people" interpretation of Chaotic Good would have killed Nale and letting him live would be a Stupid act more than a sane or psychotic one.

Murdering an idiot would-be usurper who was bragging about killing your best friend barely even registers compared to the wife-raping or the slave-bonfire. As I said, Nale's death isn't even likely in the top 20 for Tarquin's evil deeds.

One thing I find odd about all this debate is how many people keep insisting in that "Nale was an evil bastard, thus Tarquin was morally justified to kill Nale" line.

Tarquin had no problem with Nale being an evil bastard. More on the contrary, that's how he raised him to be. He dind't even have a problem with Nale offing Malack.

We can scrub concerns about morality out of the equation, beause Tarquin had no moral clash with Nale. Tarquin's problem with Nale were about Style, not outlook.

And that is the crux of the matter. Tarquin killed Nale because Nale was unwilling to dance to His tune. Nothing more, nothing less. Which would have been Tarquin's everyday schelude if Nale had been a random schmuck. But thing is, Nale was his son. The baby he saw coming out from his first wife's thighs, who he raised into adulthood alone for the most part. Blood from his blood. Flesh from his Flesh.

And Tarquin has been uncapable of feeling empathy even for him. He just saw him as an extension of his ego, but the very moment said extension choses to run free and I'm uncapable of leashing it back? then said extension becomes a liability.

"Ok, you deny me, you don't want to play my game, you crave to be free, then DIE".

From a "Good vs Evil" scale, murdering Nale is of little concern, yes. But from the perspective of Tarquin's characterization, it's a huge event that further depicts him as a dehumanized monster.

[Warren Dew]

But is Top 1 in the list of things he has done that demonstrate his dehumanization and psychopatic nature. Outclassing even the wife-raping issue.
I'd definitely place the 100 foot high flaming letters as the top one.

[BlackDragonKing]

One thing I find odd about all this debate is how many people keep insisting in that "Nale was an evil bastard, thus Tarquin was morally justified to kill Nale" line.

Tarquin had no problem with Nale being an evil bastard. More on the contrary, that's how he raised him to be. He dind't even have a problem with Nale offing Malack.

We can scrub concerns about morality out of the equation, beause Tarquin had no moral clash with Nale. Tarquin's problem with Nale were about Style, not outlook.

You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. Tarquin wasn't morally justified in killing Nale, and I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that only an idiot in Tarquin's position would spare Nale, and Tarquin is a lot of nasty things but dumb is not one of them. Tarquin is EVIL. But killing Nale doesn't matter as a good or evil act, it's pragmatic. It doesn't make Tarquin any less evil or any more evil than he already was, it just reminds us Tarquin does what makes sense for Tarquin.

Nale absolutely deserved to die, and I hope his trip to the Hells isn't a pleasant one, but moral justification doesn't matter. An evil man, particularly an evil man with Tarquin's mindset, has no reason to let a man like Nale live, blood or no blood. This isn't a display of Tarquin's depravity. It's simply reminding us he's a heartless pragmatist and if it makes the most sense to kill you, you die.

[The Pilgrim]

I'd definitely place the 100 foot high flaming letters as the top one.

Not even close. That act was more evil that what just happened, but I'm not talking about degrees of evilness, but psychopaty.

And "Murdering in cold blood your own offspring who lies unharmed and defenceless before you, just because he has told you he will never ever become a pawn in your game" surpasses "ordering from afar the execution of a bunch of anonymous slaves"

BlackDragonKing that also serves as answer for you. The point is, I'm not talking about evilness, but psychopaty.

[Warren Dew]

Not even close. That act was more evil that what just happened, but I'm not talking about degrees of evilness, but psychopaty.
So am I. There were plenty of rational reasons for killing Nale that didn't require lack of empathy. The slaves, not so much.

[Paseo H]

Not even close. That act was more evil that what just happened, but I'm not talking about degrees of evilness, but psychopaty.

And "Murdering in cold blood your own offspring who lies unharmed and defenceless before you, just because he has told you he will never ever become a pawn in your game" surpasses "ordering from afar the execution of a bunch of anonymous slaves"

BlackDragonKing that also serves as answer for you. The point is, I'm not talking about evilness, but psychopaty.

I wouldn't say it surpasses. But it shows, very plainly, where Tarquin's heart truly is. As said earlier, his place in the 'great fire below' is well earned.

[BlackDragonKing]

Not even close. That act was more evil that what just happened, but I'm not talking about degrees of evilness, but psychopaty.

And "Murdering in cold blood your own offspring who lies unharmed and defenceless before you, just because he has told you he will never ever become a pawn in your game" surpasses "ordering from afar the execution of a bunch of anonymous slaves"

Gooooooonna have to disagree with you on that one. Killing your offspring is an evil act, even if Nale's reckless stupidity got him killed as much as any of Tarquin's character flaws, but a.) there is some emotional connection there and b.) Tarquin can justify this pragmatically if not morally in that Nale had declared more or less eternal emnity towards him and moved from an annoyance to a threat. No evil overlord spares someone who does that to their face, not in any circumstances. The Lawful Evil mindset would not find any issue in disposing of an enemy stupid enough to do what Nale did, which is why it's EVIL.

The flaming letters is way, way, way more evil partially BECAUSE it's so impersonal to Tarquin. Those slaves were no threat to him, he had little reason to pursue them beyond pride, and had he just let them go, Tarquin's life would have been no better or worse than before. Instead, he gave the order to have them caught and then horrifically murdered for no other reason than to try and make a gift for his son. It didn't even register to him as murder, it was just a punishment and a decoration rolled into one.

An evil man who kills his evil son quickly and cleanly with a knife because of that son's stupidity is evil.

A man who gives the orders for a hundred complete strangers that have never wronged him in any way to die in agony on a whim without batting an eye is way more evil.

[The Pilgrim]

An evil man who kills his evil son quickly and cleanly with a knife because of that son's stupidity is evil.

A man who gives the orders for a hundred complete strangers that have never wronged him in any way to die in agony on a whim without batting an eye is way more evil.

Yes. So? If you read again my last message, I explicitly said that the burning of the slaves was more evil than murdering Nale.

[Chad30]

I'm choosing to quote yours, but this is to all the "this wasn't that evil."

By the 'cold calculus,' having one less monster like Nale in the world is probably for the best.

What makes this an act of pure evil, in my opinion, is the intent.

If Tarquin meant it as vengeance for Malack, which would be pretty terrible in itself because Malack promised horrifying, cruel evil as the end result of his own imperial reign, he would not have given Nale a chance to be brought to heel.

Tarquin only killed Nale because Nale denied him.

I'd say killing anyone, most of all your own blood, simply for the sake of narcissistic ambition, is very much one of the many definitions of evil.

Nale denied him repeatedly, and was intent on taunting him about it and intended to continue such things in the future. I think if Tarquin had killed him the first time Nale was willing to fight against him, or if Nale was content to just disappear from Tarquin's life, but Tarquin killed him anyway, it would be more evil. This seems like a neutral act to me. i suppose a good act would be putting him in jail, but giving him a quicker death than the rest of TT likely would is not evil in my eyes.

[Shining Wrath]

So yeah, he killed his son but think about it:

-His son killed his best friend
-Mocked and taunt Tarquin about killing his best friend
-Killed his best friend's "sons" (or closest friends if you don't acknowledge them as family)
-Denied the help Tarquin was offering so he'd not get killed
-Failed to prove himself as a valuable asset

Only when Nale stated he didn't want T's protection, T killed him. I assume he thought this was not his son, just a blooded, feeble and useless murderer. I'm not saying killing your son can be justified, am just saying he left Tarquin no other choice.

Thoughts?

Look at the strip. Look at Tarquin's left arm as he says "As you wish, son". That is when the death blow is struck - as he calmly accepts Nale's wishes.

Yes, Nale did plenty to make Tarquin angry. But Nale died when he refused to be a piece in Dad's chess game any longer. And that is not Tarquin's angry face as the death blow is struck.

Tarquin is as cold-blooded as Malack on a glacier.

[BlackDragonKing]

Yes. So? If you read again my last message, I explicitly said that the burning of the slaves was more evil than murdering Nale.

So you did, I see...but you still claim that Nale's death was a more psychopathic act than burning innocent people alive for fun and games.

I really can't agree with that, if only because there are reasons, and even good reasons from a LE perspective, to kill Nale quickly and quietly. Really, Malack sort of summed up how it goes with Tarquin's party:

"...Then there can only ever be conflict between us now."
"...Aye."
"Then die."

That's really their bywords; Tarquin and his ilk will give you chances while bargaining from a position of power, but when there's no talking it out, no negotiation, no reasonable solution, you die, and that's that. Lawful Evil, sane or insane, is all about that stuff. If you don't agree with Lawful Evil's rules and can't be negotiated with, it will destroy you without blinking an eye because Lawful Evil is pragmatic and will not show any mercy when it recognizes opposition it will not subvert.

Killing innocent people out of sadism for no practical reason is a much more psychopathic behavior, because it's completely impossible to justify from any persepective. There was no good reason to kill those slaves, and Tarquin knew that full well when he ordered them burned. I don't see how you find Tarquin taking Nale out a colder move than the far fouler act he committed with far less hesitation.

[Warren Dew]

Yes, Nale did plenty to make Tarquin angry. But Nale died when he refused to be a piece in Dad's chess game any longer. And that is not Tarquin's angry face as the death blow is struck.
It's a neutral expression - a poker face, to the extent you can have a poker face while talking. If he showed emotion while striking, that would risk giving away the strike, and fractionally reduce the chance of his attack being successful.

He does show some anger two panels later, when it's clear his dagger has hit home.

[Porthos]

Killing Nale was just pragmatic.

And?

I'm latching on to this comment because, more and more, I'm seeing "He's just pragmatic about things" as a way of explaining (or worse, excusing) his actions.

Since when is being 'pragmatic' about things a mitigating factor?

Besides, isn't 'pragmatic' just another way of saying 'cold'? In this context at least? :smallwink:


It's a neutral expression - a poker face, to the extent you can have a poker face while talking. If he showed emotion while striking, that would risk giving away the strike, and fractionally reduce the chance of his attack being successful.

Hence my comments today about his cipher like personality.


He does show some anger two panels later, when it's clear his dagger has hit home.

Well, annoyance, perhaps. I'm not sure if we've ever seen him truly angry.

Frustrated? Exasperated? Yes. See today's strip. Annoyed? A few times. But visibly angry? Not so much that I remember.

[Gray Mage]

My 2 cp here.

Tarquin is absolutely cold and narcissistic. The only thing he ever thinks is how the situation can benefit him. Even with his sons, he was only willing to put up with Nale while he was a glorified pawn, and the reason why he's so nonchalant
with Elan being so openly against him is because he thinks their conflict will make him a legend in the way, not because he feels something for Elan.

But what really drives the point home for me? It isn't even him killing Nale like that, it was that the only point he actually looks angry in this strip (his look in the thrid to last panel looks more like annoyance to me), is when Nale misunderstood his intention about letting Malack kill him or not. An old friend an colleage died (and by him being totally ok with Nale joining them I don't think he cared much), his own son killed the former and didn't want anything to do with him and what causes him to break his poker face is having his plan be misunderstood.

[druid91]

No, but that's because Tarquin is the one who broke up with her.

And he doesn't care that Nale is trying to overthrow him, or that he's been doing it for years- I mean, he actually encourages Elan to do the same. Its that Nale is doing such a crappy job of it that the only thing to do is try and make a useful tool out of him ; Nale refuses to be even that, so he dies.

Tarquin cares, but its not compassion. Its narcissistic love. It would be strange if Tarquin thought Nale killing Malack and trying to defeat him is terrible but Elan attempting much the same thing is so bad. Nale commited the cardinal sin of going off script.

We'll see if he expects Nale to be resurrected though.


Not at all. Tarquin cares. Genuinely I think. He tried and tried to help his son, even, when it seemed that he was going to leave and never return to be a pawn or legacy forbidding his friend from going after him for revenge.

And when Nale returned, did he let Malak kill him? No. He tried, expended resources and risked his life, and more importantly put his recent plans on hold. And his shot at possession of a gate.

All to benefit Nale and have evidence to prove to Tarquins teammates that Nale was capable of returning to the team.

In the face of an increasing likelihood that Nales idiocy would destroy everything Tarquin held dear, Tarquin never once attempted to hurt Nale until Nale, in so many words, told Tarquin he didn't want his love or compassion. And Tarquin gave him his wish, Perhaps not in the way Nale envisioned it, but that's because Nale isn't much brighter than Elan.

Tarquin may be evil. But he isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think.

[WindStruck]

You know, I guess a lot of people would think Tarquin is cold, emotionless, incapable of love... maybe that is true...

but you know, if some ******* came and murdered my best friend and business partner, I would be pretty pissed too. Even if that killer happened my son, maybe I'd kill him too if he was a snot-nosed, insolent, egotistical jackass. Of course this is assuming there is no law in the land (or I effectively wield all the power). Otherwise I suppose convicting him of murder would be good enough.

[Warren Dew]

And?

I'm latching on to this comment because, more and more, I'm seeing "He's just pragmatic about things" as a way of explaining (or worse, excusing) his actions.

Since when is being 'pragmatic' about things a mitigating factor?

Besides, isn't 'pragmatic' just another way of saying 'cold'? In this context at least? :smallwink:
To the extent that pragmatic aligns with a D&D alignment, I think it aligns with "neutral". In this case, I would agree that Tarquin's killing Nale does not provide additional evidence that Tarquin is evil - which has already been amply proven by other events in any event.

Nor is it necessarily indicative of coldness. For example, Tarquin could coldly stand on evil principle and kill Elan - but instead, he is pragmatically allowing Elan to live, which if anything seems warm rather than cold.

[Porthos]

but you know, if some ******* came and murdered my best friend and business partner, I would be pretty pissed too. Even if that killer happened my son, maybe I'd kill him too if he was a snot-nosed, insolent, egotistical jackass.

Yes, that is kinda the point of some of the Tarquin detractors. :smallwink:

Remember this is the same Tarquin who's first line of defense was:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin2.png: Putting aside the years of friendship, do you have any idea how valuable of an asset he was?

Let that sink in for a moment. Is that how a normal human being reacts to the death of a long time friend?

Then, moments later, he tries to rope Nale back into his long term scheme as a 'part of the team'.

I'm sorry, but these are not the reactions of a normal person.


To the extent that pragmatic aligns with a D&D alignment, I think it aligns with "neutral".

Problem is, pragmatic can also be the siren call of certain flavors of evil. Neutral Evil, especially But I suppose we really can't debate that on this board too heavily.

So just consider my comment a gruff "harumph" at the idea of 'pragmatism' as a Get Out of Whatever card for Tarquin and nothing more than that before we get into too much trouble in this thread. :smallwink:

[The Pilgrim]

Killing innocent people out of sadism for no practical reason is a much more psychopathic behavior, because it's completely impossible to justify from any persepective. There was no good reason to kill those slaves, and Tarquin knew that full well when he ordered them burned. I don't see how you find Tarquin taking Nale out a colder move than the far fouler act he committed with far less hesitation.

Being a psycho is not about having good reasons to kill or not kill someone. Being a psycho is about not feeling any empathy towards other human beigns.

It's about emotion, not reason.

Now, it's fairly easy to detach yourself emotionaly when you are just issuing an order to other people for them to kill a bunch of anonymous guys whose suffering faces you will not have to see eye-to-eye. There has been no personal contact. You can rationalize, or just forget it. After all, there is a reason why every society that enforces Death Penalty employs a middle man called "the executioner" to do the dirthy work.

Killing your own son, face to face, in a cold, calculated manner, and just because he doesn't wants to be your pawn, to be your toy... wow, that's a whole different issue.

[Raenir Salazar]

Tarquin is a more personable Sheldon.

That is what this thread is telling me ;)

[Belwynn]

I think everyone here will agree that killing the runaway slaves in the manner that Tarquin did was an evil act with an oversized capital E.

What I am puzzled at are the opinions that the slaves were inconsequential to Tarquin and that Tarquin went way out of line to kill them in the manner that he did.

Tarquin is running an effective dictatorship and is capturing and using slaves. A few dozen of them escape at once. What precedent does this set if they are not recaptured and punished if not executed? If 30 or so can get out at once, the rest of the slave population may get the same idea. The populous may think Tarquin weak for not being able to even control his slaves. Other unconquered nations may decide to make their move.

This will not do. Hunting them down was a necessary action to maintain control. Lighting them on fire in such a way as to spell out the name of his son, that's just style points for Tarquin and makes one heck of a statement towards the remaining slave population and everyone else for that matter to remind them of their place.

To reiterate, I do not endorse Tarquin keeping slaves or executing them. I just see his thought process on the matter and see the importance in the action.

[Porthos]

I know you don't endorse what Tarquin did. But I still want to address this bit. :smallsmile:


Hunting them down was a necessary action...

If you are evil. :smallsmile:

And, along with my comments about pragmatism, I answer with a hearty and hale: So?

A bit more expanded, I can still judge the man for deciding to do it. And I can doubly judge him for taking apparent pleasure/satisfaction in it.

Finally it is one thing to kill someone.

It's a second something to brutally torture them to death and take satisfaction in doing it.

It's a third thing to do it mostly as a sight gag to impress someone else.

That last bit could mean that the prisoners/slaves were little more than a tool that had the temerity to not do its job.

As I focus on this last bit it is a useful reminder that those people were going to die in a horrific manner anyway - that they were runaway slaves was incidental.

I mean, what do you think Tarquin was planning on using to make those giant torches before the slaves escaped? Giant Roman Candles or sumthin'? :smalltongue:

See, IMO far too many people focus on the 'necessity' for Tarquin to impose order in regards to runaway slaves without remember that he was planning on doing it all along, runaway slaves or no.

Plus the minor fact that he doesn't need to run the empire in the way he does. :smallwink:

===

ETA of no consequence:

Yay! Just made Ettin.

*does a Snoopy dance* :smallcool:

[Kish]

Congratulations, small two-headed Porthos.

[druid91]

I know you don't endorse what Tarquin did. But I still want to address this bit. :smallsmile:



If you are evil. :smallsmile:

And, along with my comments about pragmatism, I answer with a hearty and hale: So?

A bit more expanded, I can still judge the man for deciding to do it. And I can doubly judge him for taking apparent pleasure/satisfaction in it.

Finally it is one thing to kill someone.

It's a second something to brutally torture them to death and take satisfaction in doing it.

It's a third thing to do it mostly as a sight gag to impress someone else.

That last bit could mean that the prisoners/slaves were little more than a tool that had the temerity to not do its job.

As I focus on this last bit it is a useful reminder that those people were going to die in a horrific manner anyway - that they were runaway slaves was incidental.

I mean, what do you think Tarquin was planning on using to make those giant torches before the slaves escaped? Giant Roman Candles or sumthin'? :smalltongue:

See, IMO far too many people focus on the 'necessity' for Tarquin to impose order in regards to runaway slaves without remember that he was planning on doing it all along, runaway slaves or no.

Plus the minor fact that he doesn't need to run the empire in the way he does. :smallwink:

===

ETA of no consequence:

Yay! Just made Ettin.

*does a Snoopy dance* :smallcool:

Probably just the oil. You know... that they would have had to pour on the slaves to light them on fire....

And that's the thing. He is evil. That doesn't mean he doesn't care for his friends and children. Hell, it could even be said that he cares for Elan and Nales mother considering the remainder of his wives are dead.

That's the thing and it's telling. To him the only ones who are people are his friends and family. Everyone who's removed... just isn't important at all.

[Captain Morgan]

Being a psycho is not about having good reasons to kill or not kill someone. Being a psycho is about not feeling any empathy towards other human beigns.

It's about emotion, not reason.

Now, it's fairly easy to detach yourself emotionaly when you are just issuing an order to other people for them to kill a bunch of anonymous guys whose suffering faces you will not have to see eye-to-eye. There has been no personal contact. You can rationalize, or just forget it. After all, there is a reason why every society that enforces Death Penalty employs a middle man called "the executioner" to do the dirthy work.

Killing your own son, face to face, in a cold, calculated manner, and just because he doesn't wants to be your pawn, to be your toy... wow, that's a whole different issue.

But emotion played a role in his actions. We know that Tarquin took active pleasure in hurting strangers. He took no pleasure in killing Nale, just did what to be done. If anything, the value placed on ones family rather than strangers may be culturally accepted, but if we were really empathetic we would care as much for the suffering strangers than our own generally well off children.

[WindStruck]

Yes, that is kinda the point of some of the Tarquin detractors. :smallwink:

Remember this is the same Tarquin who's first line of defense was:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin2.png: Putting aside the years of friendship, do you have any idea how valuable of an asset he was?

Let that sink in for a moment. Is that how a normal human being reacts to the death of a long time friend?

Then, moments later, he tries to rope Nale back into his long term scheme as a 'part of the team'.

I'm sorry, but these are not the reactions of a normal person.

But who ever said Tarquin was a normal person? If anything he is probably more akin to the most interesting man in the world.

[Porthos]

But who ever said Tarquin was a normal person?

But you said, more or less, "If it were me, I'd want Nale dead."

So I used that to agree with you that most people would feel that way or at least feel something in regards to Malack outside of calling him 'an asset'. Then I went on to say I didn't like Tarquin's reaction because he wasn't acting like most normal people.


If anything he is probably more akin to the most interesting man in the world.

That's a YMMV statement if I ever heard one. :smallwink:

[WindStruck]

But you said, more or less, "If it were me, I'd want Nale dead."

So I used that to agree with you that most people would feel that way or at least feel something in regards to Malack outside of calling him 'an asset'. Then I went on to say I didn't like Tarquin's reaction because he wasn't acting like most normal people.



That's a YMMV statement if I ever heard one. :smallwink:

Well OK, but as a more thought-out response to what you said earlier, he did say he was putting aside the years of friendship. Why? Because he is (or was) trying to knock some sense into Nale, and quite frankly, I don't think Nale gave 2 balls of bat guano that the two were BFFs. Now what Nale might actually care about are the reigns of power to the 3 desert empires...

But also, Tarquin is a very business-oriented individual. Think of him like a workaholic even. His business is a very big part of his life, and also of course very important to him. But I still do not believe he only cared about that and not the fact that he and Malack were friends. Again, he was only talking this way to reach out to Nale.

[Porthos]

But also, Tarquin is a very business-oriented individual. Think of him like a workaholic even. I think of Tarquin as many things, but that ain't one of them. :smallwink:


His business is a very big part of his life, and also of course very important to him. His 'business' is ruling and/or being an adventurer. Kinda different than working at a desk 9-5. But I'll let that slide for the most part.


Again, he was only talking this way to reach out to Nale.

And it was a completely stupid way to do it.

Tarquin gave Nale arguments that Tarquin would buy. He didn't give arguments that Nale would buy. He didn't even try to see how Nale was viewing things. He didn't notice that everything that he said infuriated Nale even more.

And why on earth would Nale buy those arguments? Nale wants to be nothing like Tarquin. That Tarquin never realized that speaks of something, I think. Some have gone as far as saying that Tarquin didn't want a Son; he wanted a Clone of him to follow in his footsteps.

I think that's harsh myself. But since I truly can't get a real grasp on his character (not completely, and not yet at least), I can't discount it either.

[Warren Dew]

Tarquin gave Nale arguments that Tarquin would buy. He didn't give arguments that Nale would buy.
There weren't any arguments that Nale would buy. Nale is all about holding grudges for imagined slights.

[BlackDragonKing]

And?

I'm latching on to this comment because, more and more, I'm seeing "He's just pragmatic about things" as a way of explaining (or worse, excusing) his actions.

Since when is being 'pragmatic' about things a mitigating factor?

Besides, isn't 'pragmatic' just another way of saying 'cold'? In this context at least? :smallwink:

If someone was arguing that Tarquin's pragmatism somehow excuses how he treats his enemies, it's not me. Tarquin is, to quote myself, a "HEARTLESS PRAGMATIST." I did not at any point think he wasn't cold to his enemies. Of course he's cold to his enemies. Lawful Evil is ALWAYS cold to its enemies when following its ideals. But the argument that this is a particularly depraved action on Tarquin's part, or that Nale's death is what sets him apart? Nah. Any villain would kill someone like Nale after being told something like that. Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil...you say what Nale said to someone on the Evil spectrum, in Nale's position, you die. Nobody in Tarquin's position has a single good reason to let Nale live after that point, and that's part of the thing about being villains; they're not obligated to show restraint. They can just kill you and think you're an idiot for letting yourself get in that position. Virtually any villain would have gutted Nale; Tarquin's decision to do so isn't in any way unusual, and I'm a little surprised it's generated this much discussion when people are so eager to remind everyone he's EVIL. Evil guys do things like this all the time. :smalltongue:


Being a psycho is not about having good reasons to kill or not kill someone. Being a psycho is about not feeling any empathy towards other human beigns.

It's about emotion, not reason.

Now, it's fairly easy to detach yourself emotionaly when you are just issuing an order to other people for them to kill a bunch of anonymous guys whose suffering faces you will not have to see eye-to-eye. There has been no personal contact. You can rationalize, or just forget it. After all, there is a reason why every society that enforces Death Penalty employs a middle man called "the executioner" to do the dirthy work.

Killing your own son, face to face, in a cold, calculated manner, and just because he doesn't wants to be your pawn, to be your toy... wow, that's a whole different issue.

We're probably going to never agree on this issue, because I do believe Tarquin was furious when he killed Nale, and for a lot of factors that don't show up on his poker face.

Tarquin's cold to his enemies, but he treats his friends and family well enough when they're playing the game with him. Malack was a fellow player, someone whose abilities Tarquin respected and who was not merely an ally but a useful asset; sociopath or not, Tarquin would value someone like that highly, and Nale took that away from him.

Secondly, he's disappointed in Nale, again. He's been jumping through hoops to justify protecting a son who openly defies him with precious little profit in it, and Nale is finally violating the chance of patching things up with business; there's no reasoning with him. He's just a liability, and loudly proclaims to Tarquin's face he will never be anything but a liability. Disappointment combined with an extremely inconvenient loss he had some personal attachment to stroke the fires of Tarquin's rage. I don't think this was just a checklist for Tarquin; he was furious with Nale for being Nale, and then Nale had to add the frustration of not being willing to talk on top of that...you can make a better speech for provoking a villain, any villain, into murdering you on the spot than Nale's, but it would be difficult.

Tarquin doesn't show any of that because he is a cold man, and sorrow, anger, and other such displays of emotion are weaknesses. He cultivates the "cipher" personality because not seeming to have any emotions beyond his pleasant mode, business mode, and mild annoyance means he's a lot harder to predict than someone like Nale who can't shut up to save his life.

You can believe Tarquin did this coldly for no other reason than Nale saying no too many times, but I believe Tarquin has been restraining himself out of a vague sense of obligation from killing Nale for quite some time, and Nale finally managed to provoke his old man so badly with a mixture of his incompetence and stupidity and his spiteful attempt to reject reasoning out a solution that Tarquin's restraint broke, and he treated his son like he would any other enemy at his mercy.

Evil characters kill their enemies when they're in their power and have no reason not to, no matter who that enemy is. It's what separates them from the neutral and the good. Lawful Evil destroys anyone that won't play its game, and that applies to Redcloak as much as Tarquin.

[Porthos]

There weren't any arguments that Nale would buy. Nale is all about holding grudges for imagined slights.

Sure there was. "Go. Get out of my sight. If I ever see you again, I'll cut you where you stand."

*Nale gives a stupid retort*

*Tarquin slaps him upside the head*

"That was your only warning. Now go. The next time my hand flies, it'll have a dagger in it."

===

See the other problem, besides giving arguments that appealed to Tarquin, is that Tarquin didn't realize that Nale wanted no part of his schemes at all. Like none.

I would agree that there was very little likelihood Tarquin could have said anything to make Nale agreeable to Tarquin's plans, except for perhaps "OK, lets go get this other Gate and seize it then". But at that point is stops being Tarquin's plans and starts being Nale's. Which is a whole other set of issues.

The point I was making is the very rationales that Tarquin gave only infuriated Nale even more. They just kept poking Nale's berserk buttons. Not like it's hard to do, I admit. But in this case they were deep seeded ones.

Tarquin couldn't imagine why someone wouldn't want to be on The Amazing Team Tarquin. And in the end, that inability to see things from Nale's point of view led the situation to where it ended.

[Warren Dew]

Sure there was. "Go. Get out of my sight. If I ever see you again, I'll cut you where you stand."

*Nale gives a stupid retort*

*Tarquin slaps him upside the head*

"That was your only warning. Now go. The next time my hand flies, it'll have a dagger in it."
How would that argument have convinced Nale that killing Malack had been a bad idea?


I would agree that there was very little likelihood Tarquin could have said anything to make Nale agreeable to Tarquin's plans, except for perhaps "OK, lets go get this other Gate and seize it then". But at that point is stops being Tarquin's plans and starts being Nale's. Which is a whole other set of issues.
Ah. Then you actually agree with me that there were no arguments that Nale would buy to come around to Tarquin's point of view.


Tarquin couldn't imagine why someone wouldn't want to be on The Amazing Team Tarquin. And in the end, that inability to see things from Nale's point of view led the situation to where it ended.
To the contrary, it was exactly the recognition of Nale's point of view that led the situation to where it ended.

[Porthos]

How would that argument have convinced Nale that killing Malack had been a bad idea?

My initial comment which you quoted was referring to Tarquin's pitches to get Nale back on Team Tarquin, not over the wisdom of killing Malack.

As for that comment which you quoted just now, I was more saying that Tarquin should have realized very early on that Nale wanted nothing to do with him, cut his loses, and just booted him out of sight.

Would that be an extremely un-Tarquin like thing to do? Maybe. But, on the other hand, it's what a lot of villains do in These Kinds Of Stories. :smallwink: It's practically tradition to give a Get Out Of My Sight speech to a wayward heir.

But Tarquin was, as I have said more or less all along, more interested in getting Nale to see the world the way he saw it rather than let Nale chart his own path in the world.

====

When it comes down to it, there probably wasn't much of a way for that situation to turn out differently. But while many people blame Nale for his immaturity, I blame both Nale and Tarquin.

No, that's not quite right. Let me rephrase.

I recognize that both of the actors there have tremendous personal flaws that led to what happened in this exact set of circumstances to be almost inevitable (that is, Nale's death at the hands of Tarquin). Both of which have been hashed out pretty well in various threads. Tarquin wants to be in control of the situation around him and Nale doesn't want to be under Tarquin's control. Ultimately that's what drove the two apart. And the personality flaws of the two made the encounter fatal for one of them.

Had the situation been even slightly different, would the outcome of the affair be different? Probably. But I suppose we'll never know, as they say.

[wolfdreams01]

Thoughts?

I think this is all very subjective here. In fact, I'd like to draw an analogy here - please bear with me if it's a bit lengthy.

One thing I have noticed (as a general life observation) is that most people seem to suffer from a variation of Dunning Kruger effect to a limited extent. We idealize ourselves. People like to think of themselves as relatively brave, intelligent, and generally "worthy" people.

What this means is that we tend to use ourselves as the baseline measurement and judge everyone based on comparison with ourselves. For example, a gutless coward might be afraid to get into a fight if he's outmatched or if there's a significant chance of getting hurt. But does he think of himself as a gutless coward? No, of course not. He thinks of himself as a brave guy - but as a reasonable person, surely he must understand when he's outmatched. That's just common sense. Even if you show him somebody else who charges into battle against a superior foe, he's generally not going to revise his view of himself as a brave guy and start seeing himself as cowardly. Instead, he continues to picture himself as brave, and perceives the other person charging into battle as insane or foolhardy. Because, you see, he uses himself as the yardstick for that virtue, and anything which falls too far above or beyond that norm is "unnatural."

The same thing applies to stupidity (and in fact, it is stupidity which the Dunning Kruger effect is generally applied to). The stupidest people often think of themselves as extremely clever and competent, and if you show them somebody demonstrably smarter through verifiable empirical evidence, they're not going to negatively revise their opinion of their own intelligence - rather, they consider the other person to be "a genius."

I think here, we may be seeing a similar scenario, but related to self control. People who are good at suppressing their own emotions and making difficult sacrifices see Tarquin's emotional range as reasonably normal, behind his façade of uncaring. But people who do not have much self-control and act primarily on their emotions rather than pure logic see Tarquin as a emotionless robot, since they cannot wrap their minds around somebody with the self-discipline to ignore their natural emotional responses in order to achieve a goal. To do so would require them to acknowledge that maybe THEY are lacking in discipline or rationality, and most people would rather find flaws in others than themselves. It's just easier, you know.

I'm not saying that Tarquin is good or decent - I'm just saying that portraying him as an utterly cold and heartless person isn't perhaps the best way of looking at his choices.

(Also, I'm aware that my example was a bit of a generalization, and as such there will always be edge cases that do not conform to my assessment.)

[Downzorz]

Tarquin is not cold, he's composed. This was clearly a very passionate decision for Tarquin. He had his best friend killed, by his son, while attempting to give that same son a chance to reconcile with him, and then both his children essentially reject him as a father and a person.

We know that this is a passionate decision because he failed to consider the fact that this cuts the length of his rule short by decades. Moral Event Horizon and all that.

[GameJudge]

Sure there was. "Go. Get out of my sight. If I ever see you again, I'll cut you where you stand."

*Nale gives a stupid retort*

*Tarquin slaps him upside the head*

"That was your only warning. Now go. The next time my hand flies, it'll have a dagger in it."

Which leads to:
*Nale gives a stupid retort*

*The final panel of 913*

I do not see how you can believe that Nale, who at the beginning of 913 calls Tarquin a coward for wanting to continue his effective plan to live like a king over 1/3 of the world, would not call out his father as being a complete sham and quaking weakling for saying he would kill him and not doing it when Nale runs his mouth at him. This is much like when Nale managed to kill Malack, and there were all these statements as to why what Nale did should not have worked, resulting in the Giant stepping into the discussion and saying (paraphrase) "Why show one more step? You either accept that Nale has the ability to kill Malack, in which case why do you want me to waste panels with additional deflected Malack strategies, or you do not, in which case I shall never convince you that Nale did have that ability." That is ALL the solution you are presenting does. Add more panels before Tarquin knifes Nale. Why add them? I really don't believe that they will satisfy you.

[nobodyknows]

Let that sink in for a moment. Is that how a normal human being reacts to the death of a long time friend?

Then, moments later, he tries to rope Nale back into his long term scheme as a 'part of the team'.

I'm sorry, but these are not the reactions of a normal person.

I agree that this is not a normal behavior, but I don't take Tarquin to be a normal person. At the same time, that doesn't mean he's utterly unlike a normal person either.

One of the things that makes Tarquin's character interesting is that there are normal elements and some very strange realpolitik elements in his character, and that's probably what makes him very hard to read as well, especially given that he covers up some of his more human drives with realpolitik excuses(he made saving Nale's ass a matter of business) and uses realpolitik kinds of manipulations even in more normal human contexts.(seen in trying to get Elan to implicity accept his authority)

That being said, I think that this simply reveals how pragmatically Tarquin thinks rather than simply discounting his thoughts on Malack. Throughout that conversation, Tarquin shows various signs of frustration and concern even outside of his strategic interests.


Tarquin gave Nale arguments that Tarquin would buy. He didn't give arguments that Nale would buy. He didn't even try to see how Nale was viewing things. He didn't notice that everything that he said infuriated Nale even more.

That's not very unusual. Most people have difficulty fully getting how other people think, and Tarquin consistently fails to fully grasp how other people think. However, he does seem to be trying to do the right thing for Nale's interest from his point of view. He also expresses a failure to understand his son and some exasperation at that, so I don't think he just doesn't care, it's just that he sees his son as unreasonable, and as many have pointed out Nale was not reasoning well.

I actually don't think he ever could have reasoned with Nale either. My impression of Nale at this point is that Nale is really trying to get out of his father's shadow, which is a big deal given that Tarquin is authoritarian, a know-it-all, manipulative, and very successful, so that's why I think Nale is so rebellious, insecure, and determined not to accept any favors from his father. The funny thing is that I'm not sure Tarquin has to even be that bad of a father for a child like Nale to emerge.(Excluding Nale simply being evil)


Some have gone as far as saying that Tarquin didn't want a Son; he wanted a Clone of him to follow in his footsteps.
A bit too harsh, and it doesn't match Tarquin's acceptance of Elan as a hero.

Like many fathers, I'm sure Tarquin wants Nale to follow in his footsteps, and thinks he knows best. Given that Tarquin is a manipulator by nature, and a controlling person, this probably leads him to be overbearing, but I think he's trying to be a good father. In fact, most of his behavior towards Elan is really pretty kind and loving.

I think that Tarquin acted coldly in the murder(but pretty rationally and justifiably, even without taking into account he's an evil character), and overall this entire scene was a very humanizing moment for both characters. We can ask "Why didn't Tarquin let Nale flee?" but there may be a lot of reasons. It's probably best that Tarquin kill Nale at this point for most parties, including Tarquin.

[Warren Dew]

My initial comment which you quoted was referring to Tarquin's pitches to get Nale back on Team Tarquin, not over the wisdom of killing Malack.
Tarquin's calling Malack "an asset", which is where this started, is part of both. However, either way, there was no argument Nale would accept; he wasn't going to accept that he'd made a mistake killing Malack, and he wasn't going to rejoin Team Tarquin, irrespective of the arguments presented.


As for that comment which you quoted just now, I was more saying that Tarquin should have realized very early on that Nale wanted nothing to do with him, cut his loses, and just booted him out of sight.

Would that be an extremely un-Tarquin like thing to do? Maybe. But, on the other hand, it's what a lot of villains do in These Kinds Of Stories. :smallwink: It's practically tradition to give a Get Out Of My Sight speech to a wayward heir.
Getting Nale out of sight was exactly what happened after Nale's unsuccessful attempt to seize a recently conquered territory for himself.

The problem is, it didn't stick. Nale came back to try to take over in his own right again. By now it was clear that Nale would be a perennial thorn in the side of Team Tarquin as long as Nale was alive. Thus, his elimination.

[Porthos]

Nale came back to try to take over in his own right again.

Actually, he didn't. He was using Bleedingham as a base to find Girard's Gate.

He only got flushed out when Team OotS showed up.

That it was stupid unnecessarily risky (though admittedly integral to his plan) to use Bleedingham as a base is besides the point. :smalltongue:

[Eric Tolle]

I can see what the responses are going to be when Tarquin kills or threatens to kill Haley:

"Quite pragmatic, really."
"He was forced into doing it- he had no choice, really."
"She totally had that coming."
"In his position, even a lawful good ruler would do the same."
"Hard man making hard choices."

[Mike Havran]

As I focus on this last bit it is a useful reminder that those people were going to die in a horrific manner anyway - that they were runaway slaves was incidental.

I mean, what do you think Tarquin was planning on using to make those giant torches before the slaves escaped? Giant Roman Candles or sumthin'? :smalltongue:Nothing. He only got the idea after he was informed of the escaped slaves. So, it was not like: I want to burn some people for my son- ah, these slaves will do. It was like: What? Some bastards ran away? Off with their- wait, I've got a better idea.

[Porthos]

Nothing. He only got the idea after he was informed of the escaped slaves. So, it was not like: I want to burn some people for my son- ah, these slaves will do. It was like: What? Some bastards ran away? Off with their- wait, I've got a better idea.

I wouldn't say that. Note 'recapture' and 'only informed of their escape around dusk'. There's literally nothing in these panels which suggests he came up with the plan on the fly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). The logisitics he was boasting about was the fact that he was able to get them back so quickly and drag them into the proper positions.

[Mike Havran]

I wouldn't say that. Note 'recapture' and 'only informed of their escape around dusk'. There's literally nothing in these panels which suggests he came up with the plan on the fly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). The logisitics he was boasting about was the fact that he was able to get them back so quickly and drag them into the proper positions.Back? I thought he just managed to catch them at the mountain, that's why he could squeeze a sign out of their execution, and the logistics was about delivering enough oil along with the slave-hunters. If he was planning the sign all along, that would be much less impressive, since all would be already prepared, just another people would be used.

[Reaver225]

[THIS IS A WORK OF DOUBLE FICTION. I DO NOT BELIEVE TARQUIN IS GOOD AT ALL AND THIS IS SIMPLY A COMPARISON IN A "WHAT IF...?" WAY.]

Assume for a moment, in a parallel world,

Tarquin was a Good king. In charge of a Good empire of Light and Happiness and Fluffy Bunnies and Righteousness.

Nale is still evil, and the Order is a slightly misguided bunch.

Nale has, after Tarquin and his glorious group had helped overthrow an evil empire and brought about a time of lawfulness and righteousness, attempted a coup, killing the three aasimar children of the half-ascended Malack and coming to blows with Tarquin himself, and doing more atrocities. Tarquin orders no chase, does nothing but set a bounty on Nale to be captured alive, because Nale is still is son.

Fast forward to nearly the present, after Nale's further horrific deeds. Tarquin has managed to persuade Malack - who had trysts with celestials and was one himself, now - that his son had information that could help save the world, despite the celestial's intent to put an end to this murderous wretch. They go forth, and combat the Order, who's ends are unknown - in combat Malack even manages to ressurrect the vampiric Durkon to an alive state.

And then Nale, in a moment of opportunism, kills Malack, and Durkon takes the moment to kill Zztri, and escape.


Cut to the present. Tarquin is desperately trying to find some way out for his son, some way that doesn't end with Nale executed as the law suggests. He explains that to make amends between him and Malack was the plan all along- (why did you kill him? Apart from him being my best friend, he was a light of glory and good and all that is right in the world-!) - he offers to get him out of this. Because Nale IS his son, and Malack cannot be raised, and proving that Nale is worth something - anything at all - is what can redeem him in his father's eyes, after all this senseless death and destruction.

Nale slaps his hand away. Says he wants nothing from his father - NOTHING!

Tarquin checks. His face unreadable. It's true. His son, evil to the bone and just as stupid, surrounded by the forces of good that will execute him, who's just killed a paragon of light and virtue that had been Tarquin's best friend, and gloated about it - has turned down the last thing that could save him.

He sighs. "As you wish, Son." And puts and end to it, himself.

Only then allowing a fraction of emotion to show, a cold look on his face.
"What did you expect the price of killing my best friend was going to be? You would have been executed long ago if it wasn't for my mercy."


In this scenario, is Tarquin cold? For executing his son? Is he being selfish, here? Would it have been wrong of him to have put aside Nale's murder of Malack for the love of his son and wanting him to be more like himself? Would this have proved or disproved that this Neutral Good Tarquin loved Nale?

If Tarquin was Good, and Nale didn't want to be playing the Good game, is Tarquin selfish in killing Nale for not wanting to be Good?

[Akari Itagami]

Of course he is not cold, he is in a desert! What were you thinking :smalltongue:

[Reaver225]

Curses! I keep forgetting that. Ok, yeah, Tarquin's not cold.

[Icedaemon]

I'm not going to give Tarquin too much credit for stabbing Nale rather than torturing him. It was pragmatic mainly because he had other things to do, not necessarily because of mercy. Ultimately this all comes down to "Tarquin did the right thing- when you consider he is a heartless monster". Time will tell what excuses he will give, but it doesn't make him any less of a bastard. Either he didn't care about his son at all or he only hardly cared for him. Nale turned out the way he did in large part because of how Tarquin raised him in the first place.

It would have been trivially easy to capture Nale at below-0-HP-but-stabilized and have any one of his minions carry him out.

Tarquin can be called cold, yes, in that he puts reason above emotions and does not show the latter, at least not unless it's prudent. However, claiming that this kill was solely due to defiance flies in the face of evidence and suggests a simplistic binary world view.

Had Nale simply defied him, he'd have probably been able to walk, maybe even get back to Bleedingham to restock and then probably have been banished, left to his own devices (and likely due to die soon to any old enemies Nale had made if Tarquin did stop protecting him). Murdering Malack on the other hand was cause enough for death in the minds of all of Tarquin's party and the fact that Tarquin made one more attempt to smooth things over with Nale was already sticking his neck out for the boy, since Laurin would probably been able to tell what he did and have been justifiably pissed.

[Bulldog Psion]

I can see what the responses are going to be when Tarquin kills or threatens to kill Haley:

"Quite pragmatic, really."
"He was forced into doing it- he had no choice, really."
"She totally had that coming."
"In his position, even a lawful good ruler would do the same."
"Hard man making hard choices."

I have to admit that this cracked me up. As Xykon said, it's funny because it's true! :smallbiggrin:

[King of Nowhere]

Tarquin is the embodyment of the concept of monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html).
He cares about a small group of people. He is good, kind, and generous to them. He cares not about anyone else. those, he treat as objects.
And nale was inside his monkeysphere, so tarquin didn't want to kill him and was trying to wiggle him free. But nale really forced his hand. He killed his best friend's family, he killed the aforementioned best friend, he gloated about it, and he refused all of tarquin's attempt to fix it. Not to mention that he was already working to undermine tarquin's plan, and he strongly implied he would keep working towards that end. NAle forced tarquin to kill him. he was practically begging for it. And tarquin clearly didn't like to have to do it.

Because Tarquin is warm, but ONLY inside his monkeysphere. Understand monkeysphere, and you'll understand tarquin.

[DarkEternal]

Killing your child, no matter how evil and much of a douche said son is, is an evil and atrocious act. It doesn't matter if your progeny bathes daily in the blood of the newborn, as a parent you're supposed to give unconditional love to it.

So yeah, it was cold and it was evil.

I still say that Nale deserved every inch of that tiny blade and is better off dead, but to say that as a parent it was not cold and downright evil is silly.

[Reaver225]

Killing your child, no matter how evil and much of a douche said son is, is an evil and atrocious act. It doesn't matter if your progeny bathes daily in the blood of the newborn, as a parent you're supposed to give unconditional love to it.

So yeah, it was cold and it was evil.

I still say that Nale deserved every inch of that tiny blade and is better off dead, but to say that as a parent it was not cold and downright evil is silly.

Giving unconditional love to your son does not preclude stabbing them to death if it's the best course of action for your son. Say, for example, if your son is going to be horribly tortured to death and mindflayed slowly.

[DarkEternal]

Giving unconditional love to your son does not preclude stabbing them to death if it's the best course of action for your son. Say, for example, if your son is going to be horribly tortured to death and mindflayed slowly.

I agree, since it is sort of an "euthanasia" like response, though any parent that would harm a living, breathing child when he could have just as easily allowed him to escape, what with being the leader of a massive kingdom? Like I said, I'm all for Nale dying and honestly, his death was pretty "painless", considering the things he did, but I think it's deluding yourself that what Tarquin did was the "best" for Nale.

Though, to be fair, this is DnD world. He might as well have done this knowing fully well that his son could get ressurected down the line, hell he might cop out the diamonds himself once everyone that wants Nale very much dead is far away.

[WindStruck]

Killing your child, no matter how evil and much of a douche said son is, is an evil and atrocious act. It doesn't matter if your progeny bathes daily in the blood of the newborn, as a parent you're supposed to give unconditional love to it.

So yeah, it was cold and it was evil.

I still say that Nale deserved every inch of that tiny blade and is better off dead, but to say that as a parent it was not cold and downright evil is silly.

That's quite a large lump of BS to package and sell, and I ain't buying it. A relationship by blood is just that: a blood relationship. Sometimes it turns out as something no one would ever expect one to be. And funnily enough, the OOTS has explored this type of lesson.

But aside from that I will say... as a parent, if you have a child that is doing untold horrific monstrosities like you mention above, and you do not step in when it's possible, you're just as responsible for them. And technically, even more so, considering you raised him.

[Reaver225]

If you'd look back a page, DarkEternal, and see the long paragraph I wrote out?

If you were a good aligned parent, and your son has done unspeakable acts, is it really wrong to stop them from hurting others? Permanently, if necessary?

Do you think it can be done with love in your heart?

Or do you think that you can never hold down your child, or even restrain them, because of your unconditional love?

If your son came at you with a knife, saying "I want the money in your bank account, old man, and I'm going to gut you to do it!" would you stop him? Even if you loved him? Would you put him down with a gun if you had it, to stop that?

[Ruerl]

If Nale says he doesn't want to be an investment, then his days are numbered.

While I certainly agree that Tarquin is a narcessist, cruel and proverbially heartless man I do not agree to the above. As others have pointed out the real reason for killing Nale was simply because he was too much of a stone in the machine.

Its not the investment part, but there is a financial calculation in this that will satisfy the answer too i'd say, specifically this:
Asset / cost calculation.

Nale might have been left alone but he acted in a way that would be sure to make Tarquins party wish for Nales death, the cost of keeping his empire and his party together vs the value that Nale provided (mainly sentimental) simply forced the calculation.

Now, I will also agree that Tarquin is cold, but I will disagree that he lacks emotions of anyone but himself on the following grounds:

Assumption: Tarquin is completly coldly logical.
My premise:
- Tarquin is intelligent.
- Tarquin is good at risk assesment.
- Tarquin is a brilliant strategist who thinks ahead.

My second premise (on Nale):
- Nale is a proven liability.
- Nale is a proven loose cannon.
- Nale is a proven egomaniac who is more concerned about his own glory than even his own safety and Tarquin knows this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0819.html)

Therefore:
- There is no reason to keep Nale alive. Especially not given that they never needed him. (the psion could read his mind).
- It is illogical to keep him alive this long given the risk/value assesment.

Conclusion:
- Tarquin might be cold, but he's not completly without emotions. He wanted Nale to succeed (also because he likes building a legacy), it might not be the warmth of a good father, in fact its more about Tarquin, but its not unemotional. Therefore to say he's completly cold is wrong.

To say he acts coldly is true though.

Just my two cents.

Regards
Ruerl

[Kuroshima]

Killing your child, no matter how evil and much of a douche said son is, is an evil and atrocious act. It doesn't matter if your progeny bathes daily in the blood of the newborn, as a parent you're supposed to give unconditional love to it.

So yeah, it was cold and it was evil.

I still say that Nale deserved every inch of that tiny blade and is better off dead, but to say that as a parent it was not cold and downright evil is silly.

I will disagree with you here. As a parent, he should take responsibility for his child's actions. It's a hard decision, but if anything, it's the parent's responsibility and the last thing the son was owed.

By the way, am I the only one who sees sadness in Tarquin's face after Nale refuses to accept his protection?

[DarkEternal]

If you'd look back a page, DarkEternal, and see the long paragraph I wrote out?

If you were a good aligned parent, and your son has done unspeakable acts, is it really wrong to stop them from hurting others? Permanently, if necessary?

Do you think it can be done with love in your heart?

Or do you think that you can never hold down your child, or even restrain them, because of your unconditional love?

If your son came at you with a knife, saying "I want the money in your bank account, old man, and I'm going to gut you to do it!" would you stop him? Even if you loved him? Would you put him down with a gun if you had it, to stop that?

Didn't see the post, no, sorry. But I'd say if your life was in immediat danger and you had to defend yourself, then yes. But comparing Tarquin and Nale in danger to each other is like comparing the Rock to a ten year old kid, at least that's the difference I see in them. Sure, the kid given a gun can kill the Rock, but otherwise it will get a slap behind the head.


That's quite a large lump of BS to package and sell, and I ain't buying it. A relationship by blood is just that: a blood relationship. Sometimes it turns out as something no one would ever expect one to be. And funnily enough, the OOTS has explored this type of lesson.

But aside from that I will say... as a parent, if you have a child that is doing untold horrific monstrosities like you mention above, and you do not step in when it's possible, you're just as responsible for them. And technically, even more so, considering you raised him.

Not gonna ask anything about your said parenting since I really hate being one of those random people online trying to act smart and giving out advice without knowing anything, so I'll just say that I don't really hold such a view on blood relationship. It could be a cultural thing, but I was raised that blood is thicker than water, I guess. And it carries more weight. That aside, I'd rather "step in" by giving him to some kind of an authority for rehabilitation. Jail, mental instituation, whatever it takes. I sure as hell would not stick a knife in my sons gut unless he came at me with said knife and there was absolutely no other way to deal with it in self defense.

[Reaver225]

That aside, I'd rather "step in" by giving him to some kind of an authority for rehabilitation. Jail, mental instituation, whatever it takes. I sure as hell would not stick a knife in my sons gut unless he came at me with said knife and there was absolutely no other way to deal with it in self defense.And when the only recourse left through legal means is death row, or helping a murderer escape justice while he's trying to shank you every step of the way, and your friends and the rest of your family while he does so?

[SiuiS]

Being cold and lacking emotions are not synonymous. Through the long list of atrocities we've seen Tarquin be a part of, Tarquin has never shown himself to be anything but cold.

I think it's important to distinguish between a lack of empathy and a good façade, myself. Cold does imply lacking emotions. Her has them, he just doesn't let them get the better of him, in any context. This includes showing enough to let others leverage him.

[BayardSPSR]

If Tarquin was really as cold and pragmatic as we expect him to be, he should have killed Nale quite a while ago. For someone supposedly looking after his own interests alone, he gave him quite a lot of second chances.

Ironically, we could say the same of Elan. Both of them kept letting Nale live despite having no reasonable expectation that he would change his ways

Hell, Tarquin and Elan even have/had this attitude to each other: they've given each other quite a few chances to be what they want them to be. Maybe it runs in the family.

So: Tarquin evil? Oh yes, beyond all doubt; egregiously so. Tarquin cold? Not as much as he'd like. He lets his interests be compromised by his emotions and hopes quite regularly.

[faustin]

Remember Machiavello? A good ruler can be loved or feared, as long as he avoid contempt and hatred.
By allowing Nale going unpunished for the assassination of Tarquin´s closet friend, advisor and ally, not to mention disrespecting and insulting him in front of his another ally and armies, Tarquin risked contempt, something which can lead even the strongest tyrant to his downfall. Killing Nale (in a rather merciful blow, considering his crimes) was the only option Tarquin had in that moment.

[Bulldog Psion]

I think it's important to distinguish between a lack of empathy and a good façade, myself. Cold does imply lacking emotions. Her has them, he just doesn't let them get the better of him, in any context. This includes showing enough to let others leverage him.

There's absolutely nothing Tarquin could do to shake some people's conviction that he's really a big-hearted guy driven to a few stern measures by unavoidable circumstance, is there? :smallsmile:

- Burns slaves alive
- Inflicts endless conflict on the continent
- Installs a series of murderous regimes
- Has people executed for waving a can of soup or urinating on the sidewalk
- Eats the internal organs of sapient creatures that were extracted while the victim was still alive
- Stabs his own son to death calmly

And yet, he's really just a great guy who knows when to keep his emotions in check. Rather than, say, a bloodthirsty, cruel, utterly heartless psychopathic despot who happens to charming when he wants to be. :smallamused:

[Mike Havran]

- Burns slaves alive
- Inflicts endless conflict on the continent
- Installs a series of murderous regimes
- Has people executed for waving a can of soup or urinating on the sidewalk
- Eats the internal organs of sapient creatures that were extracted while the victim was still alive
- Stabs his own son to death calmly
Hard times call for harder choices.

:smalltongue:

[Kuroshima]

There's absolutely nothing Tarquin could do to shake some people's conviction that he's really a big-hearted guy driven to a few stern measures by unavoidable circumstance, is there? :smallsmile:

<snip>

And yet, he's really just a great guy who knows when to keep his emotions in check. Rather than, say, a bloodthirsty, cruel, utterly heartless psychopathic despot who happens to charming when he wants to be. :smallamused:

Oh, he's a monster of the worst kind, probably more dangerous than Xikon. What I disagree is that he has no feelings for Male. He isn't one-dimensional. He is smart. He clearly reflects lawful evil to the T, and shows why lawful evil is the most dangerous kind of evil.

[The Pilgrim]

We're probably going to never agree on this issue, because I do believe Tarquin was furious when he killed Nale, and for a lot of factors that don't show up on his poker face.

No problem. I'm enjoying our spirited debate.

I suppose Tarquin is angry when he killed Nale. Problem is, the source of that anger doesn't strikes me as the emotional conflict you would feel for having to kill an offspring. The source of his anger looks to me as the same kind of frustration you would feel if you were cooking an omelette, it burnt and you had to throw the remains to the dustbin.

And that's the point of my argumentation. Tarquin feels about others as objects, not as sentient beings. He does not feel emotional link with others. He does not feel empathy. Thus, a truly psychopat.

Redcloak? He still has some traces of his humanity goblinity left. Not many, but some. In fact I fully expected that will play a prominent role in his demise.

[Aeek]

Rather than, say, a bloodthirsty, cruel, utterly heartless psychopathic despot who happens to charming when he wants to be. :smallamused:

Totally. I still think he loves his sons. Blood is blood.

This circle can continue forever. :smile:

[Hamiltonz]

I really should check for a new comic before reading the forum, but knowing Nale dies really wasn't that much of a spoiler. My own fault.

The whole second page has Tarquin showing that he cares for his son. In the sixth panel he realizes there is no way to change the path Nale is on and He does the only humane thing that he can for his son, give him a quick death.

Without protection Nale will die a horrible death. Nale absolutely does not want protection. Therefor Nale is going to die, soon. Laurin is only waiting out of respect for Tarquin.

Just like in the Grapes of Wrath (a man should kills his own dog) it is better if Nale's death comes from someone who cares, than be a cold brutal (possibly tortuous) death from a stranger.

In the seventh panel Tarquin asks if Nale really wants nothing, in the eighth he accepts that Nales wants nothing, in the ninth he give him nothing (death).

The really sad part is that by protecting Nale from the consequences of his actions all of his youth, Tarquin prevented Nale from learning that bad actions have serious consequences.

My vote, not cold, humane.

[Kish]

Just like in the Grapes of Wrath (a man should kills his own dog)
Do you really not see the problem with "Tarquin considered his adult son to be equivalent to his dog"?

A "humane" parent would have raised his child to leave home and be an adult one day. Tarquin planned for Nale to be his lackey, forever, and the only alternative Tarquin allowed to that was death.

[Reaver225]

A "humane" parent would have raised his child to leave home and be an adult one day. Tarquin planned for Nale to be his lackey, forever, and the only alternative Tarquin allowed to that was death.Tarquin would have been fine if Nale had actually had a scheme that actually worked.

Nale had to be the head of the empire, be visibly the boss and in charge and with a giant gold plated statue of himself aboard a raft of succubi to proclaim his greatness to the world, and would not even stand having to be "below some fat old red dragon".

Tarquin KNEW from experience that that would have ****ed up - as Nale had done so many times. Hell, Nale FAILED in his attempt to get things done his way when he tried things by force.

The choices were still "Nale remains doing what Tarquin wanted" or "death", it's just that Nale would have ended up dead by SOMEONE'S hands after failing miserably. Tarquin was quite literally trying to guide his son away from a self-destructive path. Which the only alternative was, indeed, death.

[Kish]

Tarquin would have been fine if Nale had actually had a scheme that actually worked.
We're not reading the same comic. Tarquin didn't stop infantalizing Nale for five minutes. If Nale had had a scheme that actually worked--but he had wanted not to involve Tarquin--Tarquin would have co-opted it or disparaged it, or both.

[Morthis]

Do you really not see the problem with "Tarquin considered his adult son to be equivalent to his dog"?

A "humane" parent would have raised his child to leave home and be an adult one day. Tarquin planned for Nale to be his lackey, forever, and the only alternative Tarquin allowed to that was death.

I'm not sure those were the two options. In this case death was the alternative because of the things Nale has done. Tarquin is obviously partly responsible for this, he raised Nale, he put him into this situation and probably drove him to rebel, but the things Nale did weren't exactly smart either. Antagonizing Malack by killing his "children", antagonizing the rest of the party by wanting to take the throne for the empire of blood, and now antagonizing the whole party again by killing Malack. As I said, a lot of this is on Tarquin by forcing his son into this group when he didn't want to be, but I somehow doubt that would have stopped the rest of the party from simply killing Nale to solve the problem.

I think it turned into follow me or die because Nale consistently pissed off some very powerful people when trying to rebel and break free from his father. While it may be understandable that he wants to get away from Tarquin, that wouldn't make him any less dead if the people whom he pissed off dealt with him.

[Kish]

Look at what Tarquin said again. More than that, look at what Tarquin didn't say, and what made Tarquin scrunch up his eyes and declare "That makes no--"

"Your chance to impress me." "Part of the team."

"What you need to do to become independent"? Not even a concept Tarquin can formulate, unless the answer is, "Die."

[Clyner]

I'd like to note something. That blank frown Tarquin is showing isn't one of his normal, charismatic expressions. He actually freezes in place while he's thinking under pressure. I guess this wouldn't be important except that in the last panel he has that blank frown while he's looking down at his dagger and his son's body.
Wonder what he's thinking about.

[Reaver225]

Even far, far away from Tarquin, Nale became a pawn of Xykon, and failed to take control of the hordes of monsters.
Nale failed to kill Elan in Cliffport, failed to kill Haley, failed to take the advantage of the party split up and was captured. For a revenge-addled overcomplicated plan to exact suffering on his brother.

He failed to take Elan out in the Empire, and put himself in a precarious position RIGHT BACK in his father's grasp because he could not put aside how his brother had slighted him.

Failed when the Order ambushed him, when he was in charge, and his father had to pull him out of the fire only when he was incapacitated. Failed when his father left him alone and he was standing right by the Gate. Failed to keep allies alive.

And at the last, he failed to get over his father.

Nale had lived all that time away from Tarquin, and no victories came in the end. Because of his insane petty schemes, his inferiority complex that no one would deny him.

Tarquin can hardly be blamed if he noted the obvious that Nale is an inveterate egomaniac at heart, who could never bear to flee before learning what Elan and he had to say about him after the ambush - even though it was suicidally stupid to do so (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/ZRmLGJ9RpzkitUj7VG2.gif).

He gave Nale plenty of chances to prove himself. And Nale did nothing but prove he would never, ever get past his failings.

Compare Tarquin and Nale to Eugene and Roy.

Roy got over Eugene, even when he failed to succeed in taking down Xykon. Eugene didn't understand there why Roy would walk away, and continues trying to help.

Tarquin, when faced with Nale refusing his help? Withdrew it. As his son demanded.

[Kish]

...No, he stabbed his son and killed him. The number of people buying into Tarquin's framing that "nothing" is functionally identical to "immediate murder" baffles me, but then the number of people who accept Tarquin's framings has baffled me since he was introduced.

[Reaver225]

...No, he stabbed his son and killed him.

If this was Roy, stabbing his fellow adventurer Belkar, for killing Haley in cold blood and then boasting about it and refusing Roy's aid in trying to sort things out nonfatally, would you even blink an eye?

If Roy in that situation let Belkar go, would he remain a better person than NOT stopping Belkar?

[lord_khaine]

As for that comment which you quoted just now, I was more saying that Tarquin should have realized very early on that Nale wanted nothing to do with him, cut his loses, and just booted him out of sight.

And how far do you think Nale would be allowed to go without Tarquins protection and a nearby psion who is both angry and nearly epic?


I can see what the responses are going to be when Tarquin kills or threatens to kill Haley:

Why on earth should that generate any response? Haley is a hero, death by evil overlord is a natural cause of demise for those.


In this scenario, is Tarquin cold? For executing his son? Is he being selfish, here? Would it have been wrong of him to have put aside Nale's murder of Malack for the love of his son and wanting him to be more like himself? Would this have proved or disproved that this Neutral Good Tarquin loved Nale?


A brilliant piece of work :smallsmile:

[Kish]

If this was Roy, stabbing his fellow adventurer Belkar, for killing Haley in cold blood and then boasting about it and refusing Roy's aid in trying to sort things out nonfatally, would you even blink an eye?

If Roy in that situation let Belkar go, would he remain a better person than NOT stopping Belkar?
That's nice, but you're changing the subject. If someone on the forum claimed, "Roy just withdrew his protection from Belkar" in that situation...yes, of course I would still go, "...no, he killled him." Because, y'know, he would have killed him.

[King of Nowhere]

Somebody here is claiming that tarquin wated to keep nale under his shadow. That's not true. The only thing nale needed to become really independent from his father was just to stay away from the western continent. No one forced nale to go back to his father's very palace to try to kill his guests. IF nale wanted nothing to do with tarquin, he could have just avaided the confrontation.

Also, all the stuff about lethal force and nale being not a treath in the situation: all that works in the real world, where you can capture a criminal and put him in jail, and he likely won't be a treath to anyone anymore.
In oots? it don't work that way. It has been proven times and again that jails are hardly capable of containing a high level adventurer. putting someone like nale in jail is pointless. if you want to stop him, from endangering either innocent lives or just your empire, you need to put him down, then burn the body and dump the ashes in the sea. You can't apply real world cop morality to high level adventuring parties.

[Forum Explorer]

OK, then can you provide a clinical definition of love? Saying we know what it is is meaningless if you can't actually define it. Again, you keep saying we know what it is but you haven't actually explained what that is.




People do all sorts of cruel stuff to love though. I mean if you want to say that semantically Tarquin doesn't love his children, fine, but he clearly has some sort of attachment to them. If he didn't, there's no logical reason to expend so much energy on them. If it isn't love, what is that? What is love to begin with anyway?

What is love? Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1usGCnVqIqA) :smallbiggrin:

Very well said. We do not have a good definition on what love is at all. And how love is expressed varies from person to person as well. Not to mention from culture to culture.


I can see what the responses are going to be when Tarquin kills or threatens to kill Haley:

"Quite pragmatic, really."
"He was forced into doing it- he had no choice, really."
"She totally had that coming."
"In his position, even a lawful good ruler would do the same."
"Hard man making hard choices."

"It was self-defense" :smallwink:


So for this one? I'd say Tarquin was highly emotional all throughout this comic. He does love Nale, despite Nale's behavior and is trying to save his life. Think about it, he even give Nale the opportunity to tell him about the gate in the first place rather then letting Malack just kill him. Same with Elan in a way.

In the end Nale finally rejected Tarquin to the point where Tarquin accepted that he was never going to change Nale. So he treated him as Nale requested he would. He gave Nale no special privileges and treated him like he would any enemy off the street. A swift execution.

[shanytopper]

This discussion is silly.

Is Tarquin cold? Well, I dunno, burning a bunch of slaves in a way they will spell your son name, sounds kinda cold to me.

Or you know, sending a couple of bounty hunters to the arena and making them fight each other to the death, just because they embarrassed you in front of your son...

Or, I dunno, faking a three kingdoms war, killing a LOT of soldiers along the way, just so you get to control a kingdom of your own...

Or telling your hero son that one day you will fight to the death, and you are ok with wining or losing..

so... Is he cold? You bet your ass he's cold as one could get. Tarquin is not just Lawful Evil, he is LAWFUL EVIL. He is a fascist dictator that makes Hitler look like a stupid punk.

But... Is he emotionless? No. He is not. He is loyal to his friends, he loves his sons (and wives), he gets angry when feeling betrayed, he had the entire emotional spectrum.

So... If he loves Nale, why did he kill him?
Well, he didn't. Nale killed Nale.
When you tell somone who is as evil at Tarquin that you don't want his love, protection, sympathy, or anything else? Yeah... what were you expecting to happen, really?

Tarquin TRIED to save Nale. He really did. He gave him so many chances. But in the end? Nale didn't want to be saved. So Tarquin had no other choice, and went to the only thing he had left: Avenging Malack

[The Pilgrim]

So, we have moved from "Tarquin killed his son to avenge Malack", into "Tarquin killed his son for mercy as he would have died horribly without his protection".

Interesting. I'm really curious about what the next spin will be.

[pendell]

So, we have moved from "Tarquin killed his son to avenge Malack", into "Tarquin killed his son for mercy as he would have died horribly without his protection".

Interesting. I'm really curious about what the next spin will be.

Can't both those things be true, along with the additional fact "Tarquin killed Nale because Nale wouldn't submit to Tarquin's control?"

Isn't it possible that all of these things are true?

It's a pretty poor human who makes a major life decision for one, and only one, reason. I know when I went job-hunting there were three major reasons why I was doing it. When asked, I would give one and frankly acknowledge A) yes, there was more to the story B) you won't hear the rest of it from me.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Forum Explorer]

Killing your child, no matter how evil and much of a douche said son is, is an evil and atrocious act. It doesn't matter if your progeny bathes daily in the blood of the newborn, as a parent you're supposed to give unconditional love to it.

So yeah, it was cold and it was evil.

I still say that Nale deserved every inch of that tiny blade and is better off dead, but to say that as a parent it was not cold and downright evil is silly.

I'll call this BS right here. That is very much you putting your perceptions upon others. And it doesn't go to just killing people. If I'm extremely abusive to my parents then they are fully justified in kicking me out and never wanting anything to do with me again.


...No, he stabbed his son and killed him. The number of people buying into Tarquin's framing that "nothing" is functionally identical to "immediate murder" baffles me, but then the number of people who accept Tarquin's framings has baffled me since he was introduced.

Considering there was an angry high level psion right there, stabbing Nale was basically an act of mercy. Or do you really think Nale would be able to somehow survive surrounded by enemy armed guards, with almost no HP left, and one of the rulers of the kingdom right there?

What was that quote I'm fond of?

"If a fool moons an army, the arrows in his *** are self inflicted, no matter where they originated from."

Or something like that. I'd actually say Nale effectively committed suicide in this comic.

[Kuroshima]

Or something like that. I'd actually say Nale effectively committed suicide in this comic.

Cause of death: Suicide by Tarquin

[shanytopper]

"If a fool moons an army, the arrows in his *** are self inflicted, no matter where they originated from."

Or something like that. I'd actually say Nale effectively committed suicide in this comic.

This, Sums is up perfectly. Nale killed Nale.

[Morthis]

Look at what Tarquin said again. More than that, look at what Tarquin didn't say, and what made Tarquin scrunch up his eyes and declare "That makes no--"

"Your chance to impress me." "Part of the team."

"What you need to do to become independent"? Not even a concept Tarquin can formulate, unless the answer is, "Die."

I think the reason Tarquin struggled to accept his son as independent wasn't because of some sort of ego trip where the options are "follow me or die", but rather because he didn't believe his son was capable of being independent and not screwing it up (and to be fair, it's not an unreasonable assumption).

When we first meet Nale he's free from his father, and has been for a while. The only reason he gets into trouble is because he not only comes back to his father's empire, but actually overstays his welcome.

I think Nale had the chance to simply break off and go do his own thing, but his ego couldn't handle the idea of simply walking away. Look at his personality, he can't stand the idea of not being the center of attention, of not being recognized as a genius, or even of faking ignorance to gain information. There's no way he could have simply walked away from his father, he had to start trouble first. It's exactly this trouble he started, with people far more powerful than him, that lead to his death.

[Psyren]

Tarquin's story reeks of saving face. "This was your chance to impress me." And if Nale hadn't, what then? He obviously failed to capture the Gate, rendering Tarquin's entire plan to convince the team of Nale's usefulness pointless. Killing Malack at that moment was the logical course of action.



So... If he loves Nale, why did he kill him?
Well, he didn't. Nale killed Nale.
When you tell somone who is as evil at Tarquin that you don't want his love, protection, sympathy, or anything else? Yeah... what were you expecting to happen, really?

There's that pesky matter of free will. Tarquin has it; he's not a devil, he's actively choosing to be a bastard.

[Reaver225]

That's nice, but you're changing the subject. If someone on the forum claimed, "Roy just withdrew his protection from Belkar" in that situation...yes, of course I would still go, "...no, he killled him." Because, y'know, he would have killed him.Can we say that he withdrew his protection, and THEN stabbed him? I don't think anyone's objecting to the fact that Tarquin made his point to Nale, it's just that... after withdrawing his his protection, then he faced Tarquin's ire. And stabbings.

[F.Harr]

So yeah, he killed his son but think about it:

-His son killed his best friend
-Mocked and taunt Tarquin about killing his best friend
-Killed his best friend's "sons" (or closest friends if you don't acknowledge them as family)
-Denied the help Tarquin was offering so he'd not get killed
-Failed to prove himself as a valuable asset

Only when Nale stated he didn't want T's protection, T killed him. I assume he thought this was not his son, just a blooded, feeble and useless murderer. I'm not saying killing your son can be justified, am just saying he left Tarquin no other choice.

Thoughts?

Tarquin has also chosen a life path where sentimentality is a distinct disadvantage. But just because he can hide it or not express it and definitely ignore it, doesn't mean he doesn't feel it.

[The Pilgrim]

I'd actually say Nale effectively committed suicide in this comic.

I see. Tarquin is a Robot now, and Nale just consciously followed a course of action that would trigger a "terminate Nale" order in Robot Tarquin's hardcoded programmed routine.

Except that Tarquin is not a Robot. He is an human beign. Well, he is supposed to be an human beign.

[shanytopper]

There's that pesky matter of free will. Tarquin has it; he's not a devil, he's actively choosing to be a bastard.

Well, yeah. But the thing is: He IS a bastard. and Nale KNEW it.

If you go to a cop and start waving a gun in his direction, what would it be? Suicide.

If you go to an evil warlord and tell him you don't want his sympathy, despite it being the only thing that keeps you alive? What would that be? that's right: damn suicide.

I mean, what did Nale expect? Tarquin would go "Oh well, in that case, see ya! have a nice day! send my regards to Sabine!" ?

I don't see that happening

[shanytopper]

Actually, I'm gonna go and guess that Nale WANTED Tarquin to kill him. That he has some sort of plan for that case. Like: maybe he made sure some blood sample of his would be resurrected in such a case. Or maybe he plans on meeting Sabine and doing something else, I dunno.

But if one wanted to avoid being killed by an evil warlord, what is a better way than to actually getting killed by him? T kills Nale, destroy body, Nale has some backup and get resurrected somewhere else, T is sure Nale is dead, Nale is a free man.

Great plan, if you ask me.

[Kish]

Well, yeah. But the thing is: He IS a bastard. and Nale KNEW it.
In other words, the thread title is completely inaccurate.

I think the reason Tarquin struggled to accept his son as independent wasn't because of some sort of ego trip where the options are "follow me or die"

Really? Really? Tarquin said that he was trying to manipulate Elan into tacitly accepting his authority. That's Tarquin's own words, from the latest strip. That's how he relates to everyone. Has, from the moment he was introduced. You don't want to help me make an epic story? Ha ha, of course you do. You don't want to be my next wife? Ha ha, of course you do. You don't want to be part of my plans? Ha ha.

I just do not understand this incredible tide of resistance to believing something negative Tarquin said about himself.

[shanytopper]

In other words, the thread title is completely inaccurate.

Cold =/= Emotionless.
T is cold, but with emotions.
Take those emotions away (like Nale asked him to do)
What are you left with?

[Iranon]

Tarquin is hard to read.
His actions before had been entirely consistent with staying out of it and see who walks away alive.

Conviction that Malack wouldn't try anything until the current adventure was over may have been justified. Not so for Nale, especially not *after heavily implying he'd let Malack kill Nale*. Telling Nale it was "his chance to impress him" doesn't run contrary to that.

What's jarring is his belief that everything would go to his script

[Warren Dew]

A "humane" parent would have raised his child to leave home and be an adult one day. Tarquin planned for Nale to be his lackey, forever, and the only alternative Tarquin allowed to that was death.
Forever? Tarquin wanted Nale to be his heir and successor. That only involves being Tarquin's "lackey", as you put it, until Tarquin's death, not forever. Nale could then take over the reins and make his own decisions as party leader.

[nohamotyo]

This, Sums is up perfectly. Nale killed Nale.

No, Tarquin did. With a dagger. We saw the X's in Nale's eyes and everything.

[Psyren]

If you go to a cop and start waving a gun in his direction, what would it be? Suicide.

In what way was Nale threatening Tarquin? (Here's a hint - the guy at full health, wearing armor and who brought an entire army was probably the safer one.) This analogy doesn't work at all.

[Reaver225]

Really? Really? Tarquin said that he was trying to manipulate Elan into tacitly accepting his authority. That's Tarquin's own words, from the latest strip. That's how he relates to everyone. Has, from the moment he was introduced. You don't want to help me make an epic story? Ha ha, of course you do. You don't want to be my next wife? Ha ha, of course you do. You don't want to be part of my plans? Ha ha.That's not a negative trait, in itself. You can manipulate all you want for good.

Tarquin's evil because of his goals and the results of his methods, not because of his methods themselves.

Here's another point, with regards to Elan; is it possible that some of Tarquin's plots are for more benefits than just himself?

Tarquin has said that he knows he's going to fail, eventually, that one day a hero's going to come along and chop off his head. He thinks the last ten minutes are going to suck, of course, but up till then he's ahead. Do you think that he'd try to avoid those last ten minutes if he could?

Well, of course. He wouldn't just roll over and die.

But, he's happier knowing that it's his own son benefiting from his demise. That a family member is going to get ahead from it. Yes, he gets a side benefit of becoming a legend, but that's still him dead and that last few minutes of being stabbed by Elan to death is going to suck.

Is it possible for him to have enlightened self-interest in choosing a path that benefits himself AND his sons at the same time?

Is choosing an option that benefits oneself AND the person you're manipulating an inherently evil act?

[Tsumeken]

I wouldn't say he's a robot. he's more like a businessman, or a gardener.

Nale had injured a part of his company, which he was willing to overlook if Nale would have agreed to his help. Tarquin would most likely have smoothed things over and taken Nale back to the palace to be healed up and wait for Sabine to arrive who could have gotten him out most likely. Instead Nale shunned any offer of help that Tarquin was attempting to give him in exchange for gloating about killing Malack and insisting that he could now oppose him by doing his own thing without Tarquin's aid.

Tarquin had given Nale multiple advantages during the 'test' of leading the mission to capture the gate. Even so Nale squandered those as well, making bad decisions for the party in general. Each time Nale moved on his own he lost a member of the team. First he lost Sabine, though the smoke arrow was not his fault directly as it was the orders plan to fire it he rushed ahead through the smoke forgetting about them. Sabine saved him barely from the first and he got distracted. Durkon's holy word went off and his daemon popped. Tarquin's Loss I don't really count because he kinda did that to forward Nale's own worth to Malack as a competent leader, he flat out told Nale how to win and what to do to win right before he left to collect the army.

Again Nale rushed ahead. he went in before the heroes against Tarquin's advice and was wounded by the trap, then getting frustrated at not finding the gate he left without checking the tombs inner sanctum in any non-magical way. Once they were outside he moved again only this loss was on purpose killing Malack and subsequently releasing Durkon from his control. I have no idea if he expected him to be thankful or what. Malack had kept his promise to Durkon about letting the rest of the Order go, even while they fought they were still friends of a sort.

Nale had lost both of his Clerics and his demon by now. He was in no shape to take on anyone let alone a fully healed Dwarven vampire. He lost Zzdrit (sp) and ran having that be his only option. Effectively every decision made by Nale as a independent evil was met with the death or loss of one or more of his comrades.

When Tarquin arrived everything was over, a scenario that he had thought easily winnable was destroyed, and the man he left in charge was the only one left standing. Nale would of not gone back to the crater had he not run into Tarquin and his army, he believed they had come to crush the order when in truth they were only there to secure the area.

Nale snapped and was furious with that revelation even though Tarquin had made sense in his reasonings. So he decided to talk about how he killed Malack, he wanted to get a rise out of Tarquin and did to an extent. Even then though he kept pushing, denying any help from the only source he had left to him.

Tarquin's kill of Nale was indeed calculated but I wouldn't call it cold. He seemed remorseful, even if only for a moment, and did what he would have needed to in the situation given his position. Nale was dead even if it was not Tarquin who killed him, Laurin would have done much worst most likely.

Nale believed he was strong enough to be independent, and that he had done amazing things by himself but in truth he didn't, his comrades were the reason it worked. Without ZZdrit he would not have killed Malack. Without Sabine he might have died to that trap. He had nothing in the end; no spells left, no potions, no allies, and now no HP.

[Warren Dew]

In other words, the thread title is completely inaccurate.
No, "bastard" and "cold" are not synonyms, nor does either imply the other.

Is Tarquin an evil bastard? Yes. Is he a stupid bastard? No. Is he a cold bastard? Not especially.

[Captain Morgan]

I'll call this BS right here. That is very much you putting your perceptions upon others. And it doesn't go to just killing people. If I'm extremely abusive to my parents then they are fully justified in kicking me out and never wanting anything to do with me again.
.

Yeah. I mean, if your child is running around murdering your friends, and has established himself as enough of a threat to, well, murder your high level friends, it seems silly to say taking them out is all that vile.

Put it to you like this. Expanding upon the thought experiment Reaper posted on the last page, and assume Tarquin was lawful good. According to DarkEternal, Tarquin would be evil and twisted for killing Nale here himself. So what was he supposed to do? Pass the burden of killing the beloved king's son onto one of his subjects? Ned Stark wouldn't approve. Was he supposed to let him go, knowing that someone would successfully murder him in a more painful way? Or was he supposed to continue actively shielding him from retribution? And how far does this go? Should he kill Lauren to prevent her from killing Nale?

Moral absolutes are rarely absolutes.

As an aside, I would like to echo that Tarquin didn't have to kill Nale for any one reason. He had lots to pick from. His detractors keep trying to boil it down to "ultimately it was because x" with x generally being Tarquin's ego. That's pretty unlikely. People make hard decisions over complex matters for more than one reason.

[Morthis]

Really? Really? Tarquin said that he was trying to manipulate Elan into tacitly accepting his authority. That's Tarquin's own words, from the latest strip. That's how he relates to everyone. Has, from the moment he was introduced. You don't want to help me make an epic story? Ha ha, of course you do. You don't want to be my next wife? Ha ha, of course you do. You don't want to be part of my plans? Ha ha.

I just do not understand this incredible tide of resistance to believing something negative Tarquin said about himself.

You nitpicked at a small part of my post, and then made assumptions about my beliefs about Tarquin without ever really addressing the point. I do not, for one second, believe Tarquin is a good guy, so please stop treating me as if I am blind to his flaws because he's charming.

You completely passed over my point because of the snap judgement you made. I agree that Tarquin portrays that mentality you just named, I disagree on the reason for it. There's two things I'd like to address here:

1) I have not seen Tarquin take a "follow me or die" stance against either of his sons. Against others, yes, but not against them, and I question that these were ever considered the two alternatives for Nale. I mean he actually openly opposed his father and still escaped (something his party easily could have prevented or dealt with if they wanted to), so I struggle to believe that simply walking away would have lead to his death. I already explained why I don't believe Nale could just walk away without starting some trouble himself, he can't stand the very idea someone might see him as weak.

2) I also disagree with the mindset that leads Tarquin to treat people like this. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that Tarquin can't stand the very idea of someone defying him or going against him (hence the follow or die for Nale), but I don't believe that's true. In fact, I think this strongly applies to Nale, but not Tarquin. Tarquin simply believes he knows better than everybody else, and if they disagree then he'll just have to force it on them because he knows better. Your "haha of course you do" lines perfectly apply to someone who thinks he knows better than anyone else. I suppose the difference is fairly subtle, since both are essentially based from a very egocentric point of view, but I think it's an important difference.

He tried to keep Nale close because he thought Nale was incapable of doing anything without him (and as I said above, that's not too far from the truth). His mindset seems to be like this in everything. "I'm uniting the continent because I know what's best for you", "I'm making you my wife because I know what's best for you", "I'm helping Elan because I know what's best for him". All those things you mentioned can easily be applied in this way, and I think it fits his personality better.

[Kish]

2) I also disagree with the mindset that leads Tarquin to treat people like this. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that Tarquin can't stand the very idea of someone defying him or going against him (hence the follow or die for Nale), but I don't believe that's true. In fact, I think this strongly applies to Nale, but not Tarquin. Tarquin simply believes he knows better than everybody else, and if they disagree then he'll just have to force it on them because he knows better. Your "haha of course you do" lines perfectly apply to someone who thinks he knows better than anyone else. I suppose the difference is fairly subtle, since both are essentially based from a very egocentric point of view, but I think it's an important difference.

I don't. Yes, Tarquin believes--in his own words, again--that everyone needs his kind of stability, even the people who die horribly because they didn't accept that the greater good required them to toil as slaves for the rest of their lives...or that the greater good required them to die horribly in a different way.

I don't think that makes him any better than if he (for example) forced Amun-Zora to marry him simply because he wanted her, without bothering with the elaborate justifications. I do not, ultimately, consider "Everyone needs my kind of stability" to show a better moral sense than, "No one denies me." In fact, the opposite, insofar as I consider the former to show a significantly higher and deeper level of delusion.

And I do not consider "Everyone needs my kind of stability" not to be an ego trip. In fact, it strikes me as the ultimate ego trip, like any other form of, "I am always right."

[wolfdreams01]

Tarquin has all the characteristics of a sociopath. He is not capable of the normal type of love most parents feel for their children, or for anybody else. His love has a shallowness to it, which is how he is able to do such terrible things to his family and "friends", insofar as they are his friends. Its also narcissistic, since he thinks he can use them as pawns in his plans and just assumes that they would like the same stuff he does, even if its horrific or for his own gain. We actually do know how people like that think, and "loving" isn't a word psychologists tend to use when describing them except to say that they aren't capable of love as we know it.


I think that "sociopath" is a very limiting and primitive definition of ANYBODY's behavior. That word implies that compassion is an on/off switch, and that the compassion you have for society at large is exactly the same type and variety as the compassion you can have for individuals.

It is entirely possible to feel deep love and compassion for one person or group while viewing everybody else as objects. This is known as "othering" and it is actually quite common. It's how soldiers who might be otherwise compassionate people rationalize killing other human beings. It's why different religions in the Middle East clash so often - they see the other side as "less than human." What I think the point you are trying to make is vaguely like "Tarquin feels no compassion for this person, therefore he is sociopathic. Sociopaths feel no compassion for anybody. Therefore Tarquin feels no compassion for anybody." That line of reasoning is recursive and has significant logical flaws.

[Reaver225]

Useful other parts of the comic, for comparison

Xykon being cold. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0370.html)
We can probably agree that murder was pretty cold, right? With a quip?

Redcloak, in the study, watching without a trace of emotion. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html)

Redcloak, disposing of a fallen friend for the sake of his plans. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html)

Roy walking out of Belkar's funeral. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/Q90qwd8wreksdf887.gif)

[url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html]Finally, Lawful Good people doing just what Tarquin does.[url]

[Kish]

What I think the point you are trying to make is vaguely like "Tarquin feels no compassion for this person, therefore he is sociopathic. Sociopaths feel no compassion for anybody. Therefore Tarquin feels no compassion for anybody." That line of reasoning is recursive and has significant logical flaws.
How about, "Tarquin feels no compassion for someone in one of the top two slots on his list of People He Claims To Care About, therefore everyone lower down on that list is probably safe assuming he does not and never will feel any compassion for them"?


Finally, Lawful Good people doing just what Tarquin does. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0844.html)
Of course! Telling people, "That statement you just made about my alignment is wrong, and also silly" is exactly the same as mass murder and torture!

[Tsumeken]

How about, "Tarquin feels no compassion for someone in one of the top two slots on his list of People He Claims To Care About, therefore everyone lower down on that list is probably safe assuming he does not and never will feel any compassion for them"?

From a head that wears the crown perspective killing Nale was the only option outside letting someone else do it. He offered Nale safety and he smacked it away literally. He had killed one of his friends and quite possibly the friend of a few of his men who appreciated the vampire serpent. Had he let Nale simply walk away he would have had to deal with his own ranks dissenting about him showing mercy because of Nale being family. Even if not immediately minions talk and that talk would sow disorder in his ranks, and might ultimately find him fighting his own allies with reasons.

He committed treason in killing Malack and the sentence was death. it was swift and delivered in a much more peaceful manor then others I've heard of and seen in D&D/RL.

All I can truly say on the matter though is that, "Heavy is the head that wears the crown."

[Scow2]

I remember when Tarquin said that it was weird how people kept cheering for Thog, no matter how many people he killed.

Even back then, it applied to Tarquin himself as well.

I really do think you're supposed to have some sympathy for Nale in this chapter, if only a little. Tarquin asks Nale what he wants from him, and Nale says "NOTHING!" and then goes on a rant about all Tarquin's nepotism and crappy parenting. Nale is the way he is because his dad never treated him as anything other than a pawn his entire life. Nale isn't a good person and he pretty much had it coming, but Tarquin is worse and he made it clear that he was more concerned about his "gang" than his own sons (remember he's willing to kill Elan too, in a fight to the death, if Elan isn't good enough to kill him). Even his gang is really best friends second, useful assets first.

Nale is the way he is because he is tired of being used, treated as a legacy or a pawn, always told what to do in order to benefit Tarquin or one of his convoluted schemes. Becoming an evil villain in his own right wasn't exactly the most righteous path to take, but the reason he needs to rub everybody's face in his victories is that Tarquin and his buddies have been ignoring or abusing him his entire life.

And Tarquin is so selfish and sociopathic that he either doesn't notice or care. Tarquin feels precisely zero compassion for either of his kids, because compassion by definition is unconditional love. Murdering Nale because he ranted at him and killed somebody who was trying to kill him (though really more for the rant, because Tarquin was willing to let the last one slide) proves that Tarquin's "love" was pretty damn conditional. Tarquin is a glorified (if cultured) thug (for some reason I keep thinking "biker gang") who is more worried about how his son will embarrass him in front of his friends than his own sons life, and in order to save face after Nale disowned him and killed Malack was to murder him. Not because he had to (a man like Tarquin has plenty of options, and Nale is unlikely to be a serious threat, even after killing Malack), but because it was just the most straightforward option- and, knowing Tarquin, because it makes him look more villainous, especially since Elan is there.

Of course, its possible Nale will be resurrected by Sabine, but we'll have to wait to see if Tarquin takes any steps to prevent that or not. I'm going to have to disagree with almost everything said here. If Tarquin didn't have any compassion for his sons, he would have killed them both long, long ago. He has shown nothing but respect and unconditional love for Elan, and to an extent Nale (Though Nale has rejected it). Yes, he will kill Elan if it comes down to it - Their beliefs are absolutely irreconcilable (Note - Elan is the aggressor in the Elan/Tarquin conflict) - but it would be in the manner he believes best for Elan - a dramatic showdown between a Good Hero and Evil Despot, immortalized in legend and sung throughout the lands.

Tarquin probably wouldn't have had as much a problem with Nale absolutely rejecting him had Nale not returned home AND killed Tarquin' best friend. And as reprehensible as Tarquin may have been as a parent, he has been bending-over-backward to protect and shield Nale from the wrath of his enemies within the rest of his party and the Empire of Blood. Tarquin only killed Nale after the latter gloated about killing the former's best friend AND disowning him.

Tarquin has been shown to deeply care about his friends and family (Or at least sons. His stance on wives is MUCH worse). He tries to explain things in ways that his audience would understand - he didn't emphasize his friendship with Nale because he knew Nale didn't care/understand it as much.

Team Tarquin has been repeatedly shown to be a nondysfunctional Evil Adventuring Party.

[BlackDragonKing]

Of course! Telling people, "That statement you just made about my alignment is wrong, and also silly" is exactly the same as mass murder and torture!

To be fair, the goblins and orcs sure haven't been able to tell the difference, but that's more a reflection on the Always Chaotic Evil trope than Lawful good people.

[masamune1]

"For you're own good" is just his flimsy excuse for getting what he wants; it doesn't line up with reality. "I'm leaving the continent in the hands of a vampire who will start killing everybody in it, because its best for you, everybody in it" doesn't really ring true. He certainly thinks he knows better than everyone else, but he considers everything in terms of how it relates to himself. He didn't mind Nale defying him or plotting against him- he thought it would be fun, except that Nale proved woefully incompetent. He killed Nale because he not only defied him, he rejected him and refused to play to his script, meaning he had outlived his usefulness.

He didn't try to keep Nale close at all- he let him run off do his own thing (or Nale ran off and he could do nothing about it, but didn't seem to care). I think its more like he wanted Nale to appreciate what a genius his dad was and start learning from him, and realise that he- Nale- was wrong all this time. And be a useful tool to him.

Its not that he can't stand the idea of others defying him; its that he relates to others via constant, relentless manipulation, which is an extension of his fantasy that he is always the smartest guy in the room, because manipulation is about being smarter.

Nale got tired of that. Even if Tarquin thought he was doing Nale a favour, there was always a way in which Tarquin benefitted more. Nale was always a cog in his dad's plans. He wants his dad to respect him and let him make his own mistakes, but Tarquin is incapable of viewing anyone with that kind of respect. He isn't looking out for anybody's interests but his own, no matter how he spins it to make himself look good. He might genuinely think that his wives or his slaves or his sons will be better off thanks to him, but that's a secondary concern at best, and a lie at worst. A man like Tarquin works by duping others into thinking that they need him, or making the token effort anyway. If he doesn't literally think he is the centre of the universe, he certainly doesn't care about it beyond how it relates to himself.

[Morthis]

I don't. Yes, Tarquin believes--in his own words, again--that everyone needs his kind of stability, even the people who die horribly because they didn't accept that the greater good required them to toil as slaves for the rest of their lives...or that the greater good required them to die horribly in a different way.

I don't think that makes him any better than if he (for example) forced Amun-Zora to marry him simply because he wanted her, without bothering with the elaborate justifications. I do not, ultimately, consider "Everyone needs my kind of stability" to show a better moral sense than, "No one denies me." In fact, the opposite, insofar as I consider the former to show a significantly higher and deeper level of delusion.

And I do not consider "Everyone needs my kind of stability" not to be an ego trip. In fact, it strikes me as the ultimate ego trip, like any other form of, "I am always right."

Of course it's a horrible mindset, I'm not arguing against that at all. What I'm saying is that his mindset doesn't lead to "follow me or die".

Nale is more of the "nobody defies me" mindset. He can't stand the idea someone doesn't think he's a genius and wouldn't love to be with him. Heck he said exactly that when he fought Elan early on. For him the mindset really is "follow me or die", because anyone who doesn't want to be with him doesn't deserve to live.

Tarquin is, as you said, has more of an "everybody needs my kind of stability" mindset. If you defy him, that doesn't mean he needs to kill you, it just means he'll bend you to his will. This could be done in a more subtle way, like he's trying to do with Elan, or it could be in the form of torture, as with his wives. He has no qualms about the level of violence needed to achieve this goal, but at no point does it strike me as a "follow me or die" mindset like with Nale.

So to go back to the original point, no I don't believe Nale was forced into a "follow me or die" decision until he made the choices he did, pissing off a lot of powerful people. I believe Nale would have been able to walk away from Tarquin without getting killed. I just don't believe Nale himself was capable of doing so.

Edit: When I talk about Nale walking away, I mean early on, not in the latest strip, at that point it really was "follow me or die", but for very different reasons than "he defied me".

[Reaver225]

"You're not doing what I tell you to, so therefore I am right in killing you."

Sapphire Guard and pretty much all the heroes in this webcomic routinely genocide folks who are currently helpless and pose no threat because they aren't acting in the way that they believe is right. (for example, coup de gracing sleeping goblins back at the start of the strip.)

Oh, but since the HERO'S morals match up to yours, clearly they ARE right, as opposed to anyone else who says "You're not doing what I tell you to, so therefore I am right in killing you."

The only thing different between the good and evil are the acts they do.

Now, this is a HUGE thing that's different between the two, but the philosophies of Good being "you're not doing what I want/not being the right kind of person, therefore die" is exactly why Redcloak is doing what he's doing.

(Note: Roy and the OotS are still right, it's just there's less difference between them and Tarquin as I believe people think there is.)

((Side note: If Tarquin was a paladin, he would probably still have fallen (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html)))

[Kish]

Edit: When I talk about Nale walking away, I mean early on, not in the latest strip, at that point it really was "follow me or die", but for very different reasons than "he defied me".
It is possible that Nale could have simply avoided his father. I...do not believe, with Tarquin's narrative fixations, that he ever believed there was the slightest chance he wouldn't see both his sons again. What he would have done if he hadn't seen Nale again enters the realm of pure speculation; I can prove nothing, though I do not believe Tarquin would ever have willingly let Nale off his strings entirely--though, like the GM here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15271605&postcount=22), he might have taken some pains to make the strings invisible, since Nale seemed unaccountably distressed by them.

[Scow2]

How about, "Tarquin feels no compassion for someone in one of the top two slots on his list of People He Claims To Care About, therefore everyone lower down on that list is probably safe assuming he does not and never will feel any compassion for them"?Except he DOES show compassion for everyone in Team Tarquin AND both of his sons (And possibly even a few of his wives). Elan is the aggressor in the Tarquin/Elan conflict, yet Tarquin has time and time again demonstrated love for his son (In his sick, twisted way). And, he has bent over backward to try and shield Nale from the enemies he's made even within Team Tarquin - until the last 5 panels, Tarquin was grasping at straws looking for any excuse or hope that he could reconcile with Nale. Tarquin also seems to understand that he and Elan are of irreconcilable philosophical outlook in morality and ethics, but continues to support Elan's career, and hopes for a fitting, dramatic resolution of their differences.


Of course! Telling people, "That statement you just made about my alignment is wrong, and also silly" is exactly the same as mass murder and torture!And yet, Durkon and Roy's response unwittingly confirmed Haley's accusation as evidenced by Elan and Haley's reactions - of course, in the case of Lawful Good, the response to disagreement is "We're right, you're wrong, get with the Groupthink or shut up" instead of "We're right, you're wrong, get with the Groupthink or DIE!"
Lawful characters tend to be conformist.

[masamune1]

I think that "sociopath" is a very limiting and primitive definition of ANYBODY's behavior. That word implies that compassion is an on/off switch, and that the compassion you have for society at large is exactly the same type and variety as the compassion you can have for individuals.

It is entirely possible to feel deep love and compassion for one person or group while viewing everybody else as objects. This is known as "othering" and it is actually quite common. It's how soldiers who might be otherwise compassionate people rationalize killing other human beings. It's why different religions in the Middle East clash so often - they see the other side as "less than human." What I think the point you are trying to make is vaguely like "Tarquin feels no compassion for this person, therefore he is sociopathic. Sociopaths feel no compassion for anybody. Therefore Tarquin feels no compassion for anybody." That line of reasoning is recursive and has significant logical flaws.

Are you saying that there are no such thing as sociopaths, or anti social personalities?

Because I'm pretty sure there are a whole bunch of psychologists who would disagree with you.

Compassion is a very specific form of love. It is an extension of empathy, and it is indeed a general form of love that implies a measure or respect and love for other people in general. What you say about how soldiers and people in certain situations rationalize and feel is entirely true; but it doesn't mean that there are not people out there who simply have no compassion for anyone. And men like Tarquin, who regularly commit torture and mass murder, and are capable of killing their own children without shedding a tear, tend to be at the top of that list.

I think Tarquin has shown enough sociopathic traits that we should at least consider that when he says "I love you", it doesn't mean all that much. Tarquin demonstrates narcissistic self-love and he sees his children as extensions of himself, but that is different from compassion.

[wolfdreams01]

Tarquin is the embodyment of the concept of monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html).
He cares about a small group of people. He is good, kind, and generous to them. He cares not about anyone else. those, he treat as objects.
And nale was inside his monkeysphere, so tarquin didn't want to kill him and was trying to wiggle him free. But nale really forced his hand. He killed his best friend's family, he killed the aforementioned best friend, he gloated about it, and he refused all of tarquin's attempt to fix it. Not to mention that he was already working to undermine tarquin's plan, and he strongly implied he would keep working towards that end. NAle forced tarquin to kill him. he was practically begging for it. And tarquin clearly didn't like to have to do it.

Because Tarquin is warm, but ONLY inside his monkeysphere. Understand monkeysphere, and you'll understand tarquin.

This is a perfect analogy for what I am trying to convey. In fact, I am no longer even going to participate in this thread because I could not have put it more eloquently than this.

[Captain Morgan]

Are you saying that there are no such thing as sociopaths, or anti social personalities?

Because I'm pretty sure there are a whole bunch of psychologists who would disagree with you.

Compassion is a very specific form of love. It is an extension of empathy, and it is indeed a general form of love that implies a measure or respect and love for other people in general. What you say about how soldiers and people in certain situations rationalize and feel is entirely true; but it doesn't mean that there are not people out there who simply have no compassion for anyone. And men like Tarquin, who regularly commit torture and mass murder, and are capable of killing their own children without shedding a tear, tend to be at the top of that list.

I think Tarquin has shown enough sociopathic traits that we should at least consider that when he says "I love you", it doesn't mean all that much. Tarquin demonstrates narcissistic self-love and he sees his children as extensions of himself, but that is different from compassion.


There you go, with the assumed definition of love. You still need to provide that. And I guess a clinical definition for compassion while you are at it.

[Scow2]

Hi there!

Interesting question - WHEN does one, in DnD, actually acquire an alignment? Are you born with it, or do you develop it during childhood and young adulthood? Are everybody True Neutral at birth, and then deviate into one of the 9 alignments? Given how much Evil-prone the True Neutral alignment actually allows for, that would imply that newborn kids are rather nasty creatures. Given how we usually view infants (the exemplar of innocence and closely related to goodness), it would be more realistic to envision that children are born Neutral Good (Law and Chaos are particularly hard to connect to children who cannot even talk, much less understand the concept of laws or even remember them).
If you believe children to be the exemplars of innocence and goodness, you've either never raised a child, or been around a child being raised that wasn't yours. "Too young to know better" and "Too weak to be a threat" are the biggest reasons kids aren't classified as "Neutral Evil" by default. And why it's important to keep guns away from children. As a new uncle and older sibling, with two close family members (Mother and a cousin) big into childcare, I can attest that young children can be QUITE vile and sociopathically self-centered.

[Reaver225]

It is possible that Nale could have simply avoided his father. I...do not believe, with Tarquin's narrative fixations, that he ever believed there was the slightest chance he wouldn't see both his sons again.The thing is, with Tarquin, he cannot "lose".

Tarquin is the kind of person who sees the upside - or at least, can mitigate - any negative aspect of anything by taking it in a positive light. Or just claim it was his plan all along. Someone throws a spear at him? That's one more spear for his inventory. Even him being killed by his son is a "win" for him.

That's not Tarquin being evil - someone with that mindset could just as easily put it towards doing good. Its Tarquin being efficient.

Let's put aside Tarquin's evil philosophy for a moment. (Yes, yes, context is important, but for the sake of argument.)

He's pushed one of his sons towards his own philosophy, but allowed him to go free when his Nale attacked him. When challenged by his other son, Elan, he defended himself, but said that Elan could always have another go - and indeed that it would benefit them both.

He gave Nale a chance to help save the world and prove himself, and prevented his best friend from killing him.

Finally, after Nale killed his best friend and rejected every last chance of even being willing to go along with anything, he puts Nale down like a mad dog with a sigh and a final chiding comment.


Having said all that, if Tarquin was Good and his Empire was Good, would you still consider that act to be cold and that he never loved his sons?

Evil is an inherently selfish philosophy, and Good is inherently selfless, yes. Yet both sides attempt to bring people to their point of view. The argument that Tarquin never loved his sons because he's Evil and therefore Selfish does not hold water; evil people are capable of feeling love, capable of loss, capable of such emotions - see Malack upset over his own children. If Nale and Elan were simply pawns, they were very precious ones that he sought to keep safe - far in excess of their value as pawns. In any other context, is that not love?

[Kish]

Having said all that, if Tarquin was Good and his Empire was Good, would you still consider that act to be cold and that he never loved his sons?
"If Tarquin was a completely different person who did completely different things, except that he killed one of his sons, would you still consider that act to be cold and that he never loved his sons?"

My answer is that the question is unanswerable and meaningless. Tarquin is Tarquin. Tarquin is not good. The totality of what brought him and Nale to the final panel of the latest comic is not modular in the way you seem to be arguing it is, nor is "Is it possible to imagine a situation where a good-aligned character would kill his son?" a relevant question rather than a strawman.

[Tsumeken]

I like Reaver225's point about Tarquin. I think the main issue is not what Tarquin did to Nale, but that others are putting themselves in the place of him (Tarquin) and abhorring the thought of doing such an act themselves.

[BlackDragonKing]

I like Reaver225's point about Tarquin. I think the main issue is not what Tarquin did to Nale, but that others are putting themselves in the place of him (Tarquin) and abhorring the thought of doing such an act themselves.

To be honest, shouldn't readers view the acts of other characters through their own eyes to try for some perspective? I find it very helpful in connecting with them.

Take the Darth V arc, for example. Up until Familicide was cast, I can't honestly say I would have done anything differently than V presented with that situation, which allowed me to better appreciate just how much familicide was going too far.

Similarly, with Tarquin, I don't think I could do that to my child if it was me, even if the child WAS Nale, but trying to think about it the way Tarquin thinks? Yeah, I can see why what happened happened when I look at it the way I think a ruthless Lawful Evil warlord would.

[masamune1]

I said there were multiple kinds of love.

Compassion is defined as the emotional empathy for the suffering of others, to use its common dictionary definition.

Or if you want Segens medical definition of love, "Psychology: The personal experience and manifest expression of emotional attachment or bonding to another person".

Love and compassion are emotions. Definitions, clinical or otherwise, are imperfect for understanding that because emotions have to be experienced. It would be like trying to describe the colour green to somebody who has never seen green. Clinical, psychological definitions tend to describe the behaviour or mechanics of things like love; they rarely describe the actual feeling because the feeling is something that must be experienced.

And just because somebody appears to demonstrate an emotion doesn't mean they aren't faking it, or actually feeling something else.

Emotions are universal, in that they transcend cultures and nations and ethnicity, though some people truly do not feel love, or only feel it shallowly. Different cultures express it differently or value it differently, but they don't describe it differently. If they do, they are not describing love, but something else, even if they call it love, like if I discovered snow and decided to call it "fire", or "wood".

Objects (to use the word broadly) are not bound by their definitions. If people have two different definitions of a term, then they are usually thinking of two different things. There are universal definitions of love and there are universal definitions of the different kinds of love- love is an emotion, compassion and other forms of love are emotions, and emotions are universal. It may not be the case that every single person experiences them, but they are a general characteristic of human beings and many living things. What we are arguing about is semantics.

Tarquin doesn't simply resemble a sociopath or a psychopath; he displays overwhelming traits of those conditions. All of his behaviour, including his supposed love for his sons, can be understood in sociopathic / psychopathic terms, and until the Giant proves otherwise I'm inclined to think of his as either a sociopath or a psychopath. And compassion isn't something that either of those understand or really feel.

And I do believe I said that I wasn't going to say anything else on the matter and didn't want to snowball this into a bad argument. So if you will excuse me, adieu.

[Reaver225]

"If Tarquin was a completely different person who did completely different things, except that he killed one of his sons, would you still consider that act to be cold and that he never loved his sons?"

My answer is that the question is unanswerable and meaningless. Tarquin is Tarquin. Tarquin is not good. The totality of what brought him and Nale to the final panel of the latest comic is not modular in the way you seem to be arguing it is, nor is "Is it possible to imagine a situation where a good-aligned character would kill his son?" a relevant question rather than a strawman.Then; a different question. Can an evil person feel love, at all, in any way possible? Or is it impossible?

And a second question. Has Tarquin's actions in keeping his sons alive consumed a greater amount of resources used to keep them alive beyond their use to him as towards his goal of ruling an empire, and allowed them greater leeway in using his resources in order to demonstrate their worth?

If both of these are yes, I posit that Tarquin cared for his sons as something more than just his pawns.

[SavageWombat]

"If Tarquin was a completely different person who did completely different things, except that he killed one of his sons, would you still consider that act to be cold and that he never loved his sons?"

My answer is that the question is unanswerable and meaningless. Tarquin is Tarquin. Tarquin is not good. The totality of what brought him and Nale to the final panel of the latest comic is not modular in the way you seem to be arguing it is, nor is "Is it possible to imagine a situation where a good-aligned character would kill his son?" a relevant question rather than a strawman.

No, it's actually a perfectly reasonable question when debating the moral/ethical/whatever value of an action. If a hypothetical other person did the same thing under the same circumstances, do you still consider it the same ethically?

I think you should answer it instead of avoiding it.

[Kish]

Then; a different question. Can an evil person feel love, at all, in any way possible? Or is it impossible?

A specific evil person, or any evil person? The ancient black dragon was evil and loved her son. Xykon, not so much. Tarquin...is debatable.


And a second question. Has Tarquin's actions in keeping his sons alive consumed a greater amount of resources used to keep them alive beyond their use to him as towards his goal of ruling an empire, and allowed them greater leeway in using his resources in order to demonstrate their worth?

That's two questions, to which I would answer one "yes" and the other "no." Ultimately, it didn't matter whether they "demonstrated their worth" or not; Nale's reward for what Tarquin considered to be utter failure with a side of pointless vandalism was exactly the same as his reward for success would have been, "I'll smooth it over with the group and get you welcomed back as my lackey."


If both of these are yes, I posit that Tarquin cared for his sons as something more than just his pawns.
I do not believe anyone had suggested Tarquin is a maximally-efficient world-domination bot, except as a strawman.

No, it's actually a perfectly reasonable question when debating the moral/ethical/whatever value of an action. If a hypothetical other person did the same thing under the same circumstances, do you still consider it the same ethically?

I think you should answer it instead of avoiding it.
And I think you should acknowledge that it's neither a valid question nor an answerable one and that if Tarquin was good and his empires were good the circumstances would be utterly different.

Disappointments all around.

[Gray Mage]

No, it's actually a perfectly reasonable question when debating the moral/ethical/whatever value of an action. If a hypothetical other person did the same thing under the same circumstances, do you still consider it the same ethically?

I think you should answer it instead of avoiding it.

It isn't because intent matters for the morallity of the action. Tarquin's act was evil more for the reasons (IMO because Nale didn't want to be his pawn), not the act itself. So someone with a diferent morallity might do it for another reason, and thus not be evil.

[masamune1]

No, it's actually a perfectly reasonable question when debating the moral/ethical/whatever value of an action. If a hypothetical other person did the same thing under the same circumstances, do you still consider it the same ethically?

I think you should answer it instead of avoiding it.

I don't think anyone is saying Tarquin doesn't love his sons just because he murdered Nale. Its the fact that he is evil, and all the evil stuff he has done, along with how he tries to manipulate them, that makes it look that way. Killing Nale is just the icing on the cake.

Whether a "good" Tarquin killing Nale is just as bad depends on the motive, the situation etc. Its hard to imagine a good Tarquin being in this exact same situation and still be "good". If its for the same motive ("I'll cover this up for you" / "**** YOU!" / (stab)), that's not exactly upstanding.

[Reaver225]

I do not believe anyone had suggested Tarquin is a maximally-efficient world-domination bot, except as a strawman.So, you DON'T think Tarquin's a maximally-efficient world-domination bot! Both progress and understanding is being made!

Cheers all round!

If I may be so bold to put words in your mouth (in solely attempting to understand your position better), would you say that:

"In as much Tarquin could feel love, or greater attachment than necessary towards things, Tarquin loved his sons"

is a correct statement? If not, please would you correct me?

I do say that I believe the above statement holds true.

[Kish]

If I may be so bold to put words in your mouth (in solely attempting to understand your position better), would you say that:

"In as much Tarquin could feel love, or greater attachment than necessary towards things, Tarquin loved his sons"

Yes.

I would add that insofar as Tarquin can feel love, he loves Amun-Zora, and did from the moment he met her.

I would add that it is infinitely preferable to be ignored by Tarquin than to be "loved" by him. Nale's biggest mistake was in believing that was actually a choice he had. Well, and perhaps not spelling out "what I want from you is to never have to deal with you again" rather than saying "NOTHING"...but I don't actually believe it would have ended any differently if he had said that.

[Reaver225]

It isn't because intent matters for the morallity of the action. Tarquin's act was evil more for the reasons (IMO because Nale didn't want to be his pawn), not the act itself. So someone with a diferent morallity might do it for another reason, and thus not be evil.I'd put forward my thoughts that Tarquin's line of reasoning for stabbing Nale would be exactly the same as a good person's line of thoughts; "Nale does not ascribe to my brand of philosophy, and he is also a liability and a danger to everyone/thing that I care about. Therefore, I will prevent him from continuing to be a liability and a danger to everyone/thing I care about." Through the most appropriate D&D method of doing such a thing.

Not all murders by Tarquin follow this line of thought, I'm sure, but this one matches the exact same line of reasoning as most of the good characters who are more ruthless than Elan.


Yes.

I would add that insofar as Tarquin can feel love, he loves Amun-Zora, and did from the moment he met her.

I would add that it is infinitely preferable to be ignored by Tarquin than to be "loved" by him. Nale's biggest mistake was in believing that was actually a choice he had. Well, and perhaps not spelling out "what I want from you is to never have to deal with you again" rather than saying "NOTHING"...but I don't actually believe it would have ended any differently if he had said that.Ok! Lots of progress.

Was Tarquin murdering Nale a cold act?

[Kish]

I don't think he did it because he was overcome with rage, if that's what you mean.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm genuinely not sure how to interpret the question. Tarquin is cold, detached, manipulative, and at the same time completely motivated by emotions (ego, a desire for control). Nale's killing Malack was motivated by rage. Nale's trying to kill Elan was motivated by anger. All Tarquin's killings so far have been considerably more intellectual.

[The Pilgrim]

As an aside, I would like to echo that Tarquin didn't have to kill Nale for any one reason. He had lots to pick from. His detractors keep trying to boil it down to "ultimately it was because x" with x generally being Tarquin's ego. That's pretty unlikely. People make hard decisions over complex matters for more than one reason.

Well, it's logical to think that "Tarquin killed Nale ultimately because of X" when the comic shows Tarquin switching from

"My plan all along was to manipulate my lifetime allies into allowing you to get away with having killed the children of one of them. And even trough you threw that plan off the board I still want to let you get away with killing one of them, if only you accept, at last, to become a piece in my game"

to

*stabs his son in the chest*

Due to X.

Where X means Nale rejecting to become a piece in Tarquin's game.

[SavageWombat]

It isn't because intent matters for the morallity of the action. Tarquin's act was evil more for the reasons (IMO because Nale didn't want to be his pawn), not the act itself. So someone with a diferent morallity might do it for another reason, and thus not be evil.

The fact that you answered with "because intent matters" is the reason why the question is, in fact, relevant. You're using the hypothetical example to make an important distinction.

[Warren Dew]

My answer is that the question is unanswerable and meaningless. Tarquin is Tarquin. Tarquin is not good. The totality of what brought him and Nale to the final panel of the latest comic is not modular in the way you seem to be arguing it is, nor is "Is it possible to imagine a situation where a good-aligned character would kill his son?" a relevant question rather than a strawman.
Or in D&D terms, Tarquin is cold because he's evil aligned. I guess that's one way to look at it, though I think the alignment system works better if alignment is viewed as a result of actions, rather than a cause of them.


Tarquin doesn't simply resemble a sociopath or a psychopath; he displays overwhelming traits of those conditions. All of his behaviour, including his supposed love for his sons, can be understood in sociopathic / psychopathic terms, and until the Giant proves otherwise I'm inclined to think of his as either a sociopath or a psychopath. And compassion isn't something that either of those understand or really feel.
Not actually true. Tarquin would lose nothing personally by permitting Malack to kill Nale much earlier in the arc; in fact that would improve his relationship with Malack and the rest of his party. Given Tarquin's social milieu, there won't even be any negative societal opprobrium for allowing his son to be killed. For that reason, the sociopathic thing to do there would be to allow Malack to kill Nale.

That Tarquin protects Nale from Malack for so long clearly indicates consideration for Nale as a separate person, which is not a sociopathic attitude. Certainly many, even most, of Tarquin's other actions are consistent with sociopathy, but this one is an exception.

[Captain Morgan]

Well, it's logical to think that "Tarquin killed Nale ultimately because of X" when the comic shows Tarquin switching from

"My plan all along was to manipulate my lifetime allies into allowing you to get away with having killed the children of one of them. And even trough you threw that plan off the board I still want to let you get away with killing one of them, if only you accept, at last, to become a piece in my game"

to

*stabs his son in the chest*

Due to X.

Where X means Nale rejecting to become a piece in Tarquin's game.

But that wasn't the only variable. Variable Y was that Nale didn't want any special treatment from Tarquin, and so Tarquin respected this by treating Nale as he would anyone else who wronged him. Variable Z is that Nale had just proven himself a significant enough threat to engineer the death of a high level party member, and he would probably try it again eventually. Variable W is that the rest of Tarquin's allies wanted Nale dead at that point and Tarquin would have to work to prevent this. Variable M is that Nale was a mad dog who pretty much couldn't be reasoned with. Variable B was that he had just killed his best friend. Variable R was that this cost him a valuable resource.

And what did Nale have going for him: Nothing but Variable L, which was Tarquin's love for his son (or as close an approximation of love as he is capable of or what have you.)

You are acting like the equation was X = Tarquin kills Nale. The equation is actually X+Y+Z+W+M+B+R-L = Tarquin kills Nale. As someone else said, circumstances do matter, and reductionist thinking makes for poor reasoning. X can be a factor, maybe even the BIGGEST factor, but that does not mean the others had no part to play.

And as an aside, just because Variable L did not outweigh the other variables does not mean that L did not exist at all.

[Reaver225]

I don't think he did it because he was overcome with rage, if that's what you mean.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be evasive, I'm genuinely not sure how to interpret the question. Tarquin is cold, detached, manipulative, and at the same time completely motivated by emotions (ego, a desire for control). Nale's killing Malack was motivated by rage. Nale's trying to kill Elan was motivated by anger. All Tarquin's killings so far have been considerably more intellectual.No worries, not at all. There's very unlikely to be a simple binary answer for questions into a fictional character's thoughts, barring a thought bubble or word of god.

I don't think Tarquin's killings are exactly motivated by a desire for control - rather, his control was exercised BY his killings. A subtle distinction. And, after looking at the previous strip, I'll weaken my point further by quoting Tarquin himself - "Power I can't access is no power at all" - but, the thing is that Tarquin's act was not done from any act of petty jealousy or upset of being denied. It's more of acknowledging that Nale wouldn't ever reconcile with him, and so treated Nale exactly how he wanted to be treated - without the leniency he had been showing before.




Well, it's logical to think that "Tarquin killed Nale ultimately because of X" when the comic shows Tarquin switching from

"My plan all along was to manipulate my lifetime allies into allowing you to get away with having killed the children of one of them. And even trough you threw that plan off the board I still want to let you get away with killing one of them, if only you accept, at last, to become a piece in my game"

to

*stabs his son in the chest*

Due to X.

Where X means Nale rejecting to become a piece in Tarquin's game.The thing is, Nale never escaped being a piece in Tarquin's game, if you want to see it like that. He just relegated himself from a very badly behaved knight to a pawn that's in a strategically bad position that had just cost him a rook the previous turn.

[masamune1]

Or in D&D terms, Tarquin is cold because he's evil aligned. I guess that's one way to look at it, though I think the alignment system works better if alignment is viewed as a result of actions, rather than a cause of them.


Not actually true. Tarquin would lose nothing personally by permitting Malack to kill Nale much earlier in the arc; in fact that would improve his relationship with Malack and the rest of his party. Given Tarquin's social milieu, there won't even be any negative societal opprobrium for allowing his son to be killed. For that reason, the sociopathic thing to do there would be to allow Malack to kill Nale.

That Tarquin protects Nale from Malack for so long clearly indicates consideration for Nale as a separate person, which is not a sociopathic attitude. Certainly many, even most, of Tarquin's other actions are consistent with sociopathy, but this one is an exception.

Not killing your kids isn't non-sociopathic behaviour. Most sociopaths and psychopaths don't kill anyone, ever.

A sociopath would consider their child their property, and wouldn't just let anyone else kill them. And he was going to let Malack kill Nale until Nale told him about the Gates, at which point he became useful.

And he is a narcissist, so he probably sees his child as an image of himself. And he is always looking to improve his image. If Nale becomes a successful villain, he- Tarquin- would feel credited for it. And again, it would mean he thinks his child belongs to him.

[Captain Morgan]

This may be in bad taste of me, since you already said you did not want to respond, but Kish and Reaver give me some hope that dialogue can actually be illuminating on this board, so forgive me.



Or if you want Segens medical definition of love, "Psychology: The personal experience and manifest expression of emotional attachment or bonding to another person". adieu.

How has Tarquin not demonstrated emotional attachment to his children? He has gone to ridiculous lengths for them. Saying they are merely his pawns falls flat because he treats other people as pawns and it looks very different. They are at least the rooks to his king, if you will pardon the metaphor, and he protects them as such.



Reaver already outlined well enough why Tarquin clearly either loves his boys or has something love-like for them, as close as he is capable of having. Which it is may be largely a manner of semantics, but if a concept can not be universally experienced than we should not claim that they are universal, despite what you insist on your post.

[skim172]

Tarquin is cold. He's not without sentiment, but he weighs it against other factors. Surely, he was angry with Nale for many reasons - for being a disappointment, for betraying him, for opposing him, for killing Malack - but he was willing to set that aside as long as Nale was useful to him. That's calculated - hence, "cold," or rather "cold-blooded." Premeditated.

Nale is hot. He's not without the ability to calculate all those factors, but he's very impulsive and generally lets emotions guide all his decisions. Even if those decisions are foolish or self-destructive - he still does them. In fact, from a real-world psych perspective, Nale has always been on a self-destructive arc, now concluded in the inevitable place: destruction at the hands of the person he blames for it all. Hence, "hot-blooded."

Both are extremely evil people, but with very different characters and mindsets.

Consider, for example, if your roommate takes the LAST ICE CREAM SANDWICH and dammit, YOU paid for it and YEAH you said he could share, but THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU AND YOUR STUPID FRIENDS CAN EAT PRACTICALL ALL OF THEM. :smallmad:

You're angry. And let's say you're a violent, evil, homicidal maniac. If you're hot-blooded, you run in the room, screaming, knife drawn, ranting abut every little thing they do that pisses you off ("AND YOU NEVER CLOSE THE BLINDS AT NIGHT" :smallfurious:). If you're cold-blooded, you don't mention it, you wait until the rent's due and they pay their share, and then you execute a finely tuned plan to coordinate their fatal "accident," as far as the cops are concerned. You also manage to convince them to make you their sole beneficiary in their will shortly before they die.

Alternatively, you're a good, meek, and extremely passive-aggressive individual. Hot-blooded: Badmouth them to every friend that knows your roommate but isn't friends with them, then "accidentally" break some of their dishes in the dishwasher. Cold-blooded: Don't bring it up, but never offer to share anything you buy with them in the future, while maybe sneaking some of their ice cream the next time they buy some, ha ha ha, the sweetest revenge. :smalltongue:

[masamune1]

This may be in bad taste of me, since you already said you did not want to respond, but Kish and Reaver give me some hope that dialogue can actually be illuminating on this board, so forgive me.



How has Tarquin not demonstrated emotional attachment to his children? He has gone to ridiculous lengths for them. Saying they are merely his pawns falls flat because he treats other people as pawns and it looks very different. They are at least the rooks to his king, if you will pardon the metaphor, and he protects them as such.



Reaver already outlined well enough why Tarquin clearly either loves his boys or has something love-like for them, as close as he is capable of having. Which it is may be largely a manner of semantics, but if a concept can not be universally experienced than we should not claim that they are universal, despite what you insist on your post.

Pawns, rooks, they are still pieces on his chessboard. I would hesitate to call that love, and certainly not compassion. At best, narcissistic love, and that's because he is a sociopath. If he acts sociopathic in every other context, i'm not going to simply assume that his behaviour towards his children isn't sociopathic. I'm going to assume he is a sociopath (might even go so far as to call him a psychopath), and I know that sociopaths do not feel compassionate love.

If he is a psychopath, then he is emotionally shallow, and if he appears otherwise then he is exaggerating his emotions. Just because he appears to be attached to them does not mean he is, because sociopaths and psychopaths are masters of faking it. I definitely don't think he has really bonded with them, at least not in any meaningful way, since he doesn't even understand why Nale keeps screwing up his plans. He grasps things intellectually, but not necessarily emotionally.

There is a difference between universal definition and universal feeling. Speaking literally there are no universal definitions- if I have a tree in my back garden, and I call it a tree, there will always be someone, somewhere, who does not see it as a tree. There is no such thing as universal definitions, because someone, somewhere is always going to argue, no matter how obvious you might think the right answer is.

Basically, I'm not speaking totally literally. Compassionate love is universal in the way sight is "universal"- you would be considered handicapped if you couldn't see, so you could be considered lacking something if you can't feel compassion.

[Captain Morgan]

Not killing your kids isn't non-sociopathic behaviour. Most sociopaths and psychopaths don't kill anyone, ever.

A sociopath would consider their child their property, and wouldn't just let anyone else kill them. And he was going to let Malack kill Nale until Nale told him about the Gates, at which point he became useful.

And he is a narcissist, so he probably sees his child as an image of himself. And he is always looking to improve his image. If Nale becomes a successful villain, he- Tarquin- would feel credited for it. And again, it would mean he thinks his child belongs to him.

This is starting to sound like No True Scotsman. "When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."

I mean, you are contradicting yourself here. If he sees Nale as an image or extension of himself. Why would he let Malack murder an extension of himself?

(Plus, it is pretty clear that he never intended Malack to kill Nale, but rather used the threat to scare information (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html)out of Nale. Information that he hoped would justify Nale's continued existence to Malack. Which it did (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html).)

So basically, you can't give a universal definition of your terms other than to say Tarquin does or doesn't fit them. That's like saying that "If you love someone it is impossible to cheat on them." There are a bunch of regretful husbands out there who disagree with that sentiment, I am sure.

You can love someone and also manipulate them to your own needs, too. We all do to an extent.

[Captain Morgan]

Pawns, rooks, they are still pieces on his chessboard. I would hesitate to call that love, and certainly not compassion. At best, narcissistic love, and that's because he is a sociopath. If he acts sociopathic in every other context, i'm not going to simply assume that his behaviour towards his children isn't sociopathic. I'm going to assume he is a sociopath (might even go so far as to call him a psychopath), and I know that sociopaths do not feel compassionate love.

If he is a psychopath, then he is emotionally shallow, and if he appears otherwise then he is exaggerating his emotions. Just because he appears to be attached to them does not mean he is, because sociopaths and psychopaths are masters of faking it. I definitely don't think he has really bonded with them, at least not in any meaningful way, since he doesn't even understand why Nale keeps screwing up his plans. He grasps things intellectually, but not necessarily emotionally.

There is a difference between universal definition and universal feeling. Speaking literally there are no universal definitions- if I have a tree in my back garden, and I call it a tree, there will always be someone, somewhere, who does not see it as a tree. There is no such thing as universal definitions, because someone, somewhere is always going to argue, no matter how obvious you might think the right answer is.

Basically, I'm not speaking totally literally. Compassionate love is universal in the way sight is "universal"- you would be considered handicapped if you couldn't see, so you could be considered lacking something if you can't feel compassion.

Oh, cool. We are getting somewhere here. Sight and emotions are not really comparable. We can tell when someone lacks sight, and a person can generally tell themselves when they lack sight. It is easy to observe and detect. Emotions and feelings are not. If someone fakes an emotion well enough, it is going to be indistinguishable to an outside observer and also to themselves. At that point, you have essentially you fake it to you make it and actually wind up becoming what you are faking. This is an observable psychological phenomenon, believe it or not.

Now, we don't really know if Tarquin is fooling himself that he is capable of love. You as an outside observer seem to think so, but at least half the people in this thread don't seem to.

Now it may be the case that as our understanding of brain chemistry evolves we reach a point where we can point to specific sections of the brain and specific chemicals which are released and say "That is love." And it is probably the case that true sociopaths lack whatever this biological process is, in the same way that blind people lack the biological process of sight.

But seeing as how it is unlikely that the Giant will have Tarquin undergo a futuristic CAT scan for our curiosity, we don't actually know what he feels or doesn't feel. We can also speculate based on his actions. And I observe that yes, he displays a complete disregard for human life on a regular basis. He also does not disregard the lives of those close to him even when it would be to his own advantage.

I mean, Nale himself displays some of these tendencies. He murders a lot of people and doesn't think of them as anything other than a way to get attention from the Order. AND YET it is very clear that he and Sabine are in love. It's an evil love, but can you really look at their interactions and tell me that the Giant doesn't think evil psychos can also love?

EDIT: And let me also add that this is a very fun discussion for me, and it is my first discussion on the board. Kudos all around!

[masamune1]

This is starting to sound like No True Scotsman. "When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule."

I mean, you are contradicting yourself here. If he sees Nale as an image or extension of himself. Why would he let Malack murder an extension of himself?

If he sees Nale as an embarrassment, or to have outlived his usefulness, then yes he could allow it. Hell he killed Nale himself, after all.

A narcissist might have more problems with that kind of thing, but Tarquin is both a narcissist and either a sociopath or a psychopath- he wouldn't be as bothered. Because he lacks compassion. Its not a contradiction, its the difference between Tarquin and everybody else. He can see Nale as a part of himself and still let him die, and in the end he does.


(Plus, it is pretty clear that he never intended Malack to kill Nale, but rather used the threat to scare information (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html)out of Nale. Information that he hoped would justify Nale's continued existence to Malack. Which it did (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html).)

I'll concede that. But he was at very least gambling with Nale's life. There was always the chance that Malack killed Nale before Nale said anything, or that Nale had nothing to say, or that (less likely) Nale would try to fight, or run, and be killed.

The measure of compassion is how much this would bother him. It might not have been his plan, but it shows how reckless he is with Nale's life that he did that pretty much just so he could gloat that he knew all along.


So basically, you can't give a universal definition of your terms other than to say Tarquin does or doesn't fit them. That's like saying that "If you love someone it is impossible to cheat on them." There are a bunch of regretful husbands out there who disagree with that sentiment, I am sure.


I wouldn't define love as behaviour. Love is a feeling; behaviour reflects it, and we can draw inferences from behaviour. You can still love somebody you cheat on; but if you cheat on them repeatedly, then its looking less likely that you do. Certainly means the compassion thing is lacking, or being blocked out. And if the person acts like a **** to everyone else in addition to how they treat their "love" interest, then the likelihood drops even further, because now you must start to wonder if they are even capable of compassionate love.

Tarquin constantly manipulates his sons, and plays with their lives for his own profit. He has ordered the deaths of probably tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people, often gruesome death and torture. He is a serial spouse who gains a new wife by forcing her into marriage (with torture). He is bent on global, or at least continental domination. He runs three empires, all built on slavery and war (so far as we know- the one he runs directly is, anyway). He wants one son to fight him to the death because he thinks that would be an awesome end to his story- assuming he doesn't kill said son in battle-, and he wants the other son to be his lackey, or at least to put some thought and class into his murderous betrayals. All of that easily qualifies him for a sociopath, and if he is a sociopath then I'm doubting he feels compassionate love for his kids, as evident by his complaints that he doesn't get why his sons have such a problem with the way he acts or treats them.

And I think I've been careful to say "compassionate love", not "love", since I'm open to narcissistic love. Which isn't compassion (which is what, I think, I was originally arguing against), which isn't itself particularly laudable, and which itself is crippled by his sociopathy, which means his "love" is shallow. It doesn't mean he doesn't love himself more, either, so he might not want to kill his kids for his own agenda, but I wouldn't put it passed him.

The worst you can accuse me of is applying real-world standards (sociopathy) to a web comic, but I don't think I'm contradicting myself.


You can love someone and also manipulate them to your own needs, too. We all do to an extent.

Yes, you can. But that doesn't mean that Tarquin loves his sons. It doesn't follow that someone who manipulates someone to their own needs loves that person.

[The Oni]

Personally, I don't see what other option Tarquin had here. Nale had already made it clear that he cared nothing for Tarquin, or his friends/allies, or his plans, and Tarquin was still willing to forgive him.

Nale said he wanted nothing from him; no charity, no nepotism, and no special treatment. He was effectively disowning his father, so Tarquin treated Nale exactly as he would've treated any other traitor - with a knife to the chest.

What were his other options? Exile him again? Because he did that, and Nale came back. Lock him up? His team are experts in breaking and entering. Letting him live would endanger the rest of his allies. Any punishment would've just increased Nale's contempt for him. Really, it was only a matter of time (or levels) before he came for Tarquin himself - and Tarquin would've never allowed himself to be killed by his EVIL son - it would've made a poor narrative to be overthrown by another villain.

So yes, it was harsh; but anything else would've been stupid beyond belief.

What I'm really curious about is what Sabine plans to do about it...

[Captain Morgan]

Yes, you can. But that doesn't mean that Tarquin loves his sons. It doesn't follow that someone who manipulates someone to their own needs loves that person.

It doesn't follow that they don't either, is what I am saying. And frankly, what is Tarquin's need? Having some sort of successor or legacy, I suppose. He's clearly willing to sacrifice other legitimate interests for this goal.

But why do people decide to have kids at all, if not for this very reason? There is no moral imperative to have children. It certainly does not align with our own self interest so far as it can be defined it terms of economic security and personal pleasures. (Tarquin happens to have both in excess, but still.) We have children out of a biological desire to pass on our genes which manifests in various social and emotional ways. We also believe that our love for our children will bring us greater pleasure in life, even though studies have shown this is demonstrably untrue. And frankly it's morally bankrupt to think having our own children is better than adopting those who lives in poverty.

Having children-- rather than adopting, for example-- is actually a selfish and kind of irrational act. It's just one that 95% of society deems OK. We already know that Tarquin is selfish. Wanting children, and trying to look after them, is the sole bit of irrationality he seems to possess, and it is the one thing he has in common with 95% of the world.

[The Pilgrim]

But that wasn't the only variable.

We don't really have any proof that variable W exists. And even if it does, Tarquin by his own words has informed that he can hold the leash on his allies, like he did with Malak himself.

Variable B, I don't think it matters to Tarquin at all, beyond maybe pretending to care out of pride and to keep Face "he killed my friend, I'm supposed to do something about it or I will lose face before the rest of my paws. Plus, I really liked that Ming Vase, I must punish that brat for breaking it before the rabble starts to think they can break my favorite objects without consequences."

Anyway, all the variables you have mentioned, add up to a single variable: Tarquin realizing that he will never be able to manipulate Nale into playing the role He assigned to him in His Big Screenplay.

Nale had just told Tarquin what he wanted from him: Nothing. If Tarquin wanted to recover his relationship with his Son, he had first to allow him fly alone.

But of course, control-freak Tarquin could never allow that. If a piece doesn't moves like He commands, that piece must be destroyed. Be it Nale, or any of his previous wifes.

The theme of the child who becomes rebelious in order to reafirm his own personality, is a classic theme in parenting. The inevitable moment in which you have to step down and allow your children to become adults and thus independent. And the normal reaction is to let your offspring go, not to stab him in the chest.

Tarquin is damaged. Very damaged.


I mean, Nale himself displays some of these tendencies. He murders a lot of people and doesn't think of them as anything other than a way to get attention from the Order. AND YET it is very clear that he and Sabine are in love. It's an evil love, but can you really look at their interactions and tell me that the Giant doesn't think evil psychos can also love?

Nale was a psycho, yes. But at least he felt something for Sabine. Tarquin, on the other hand, has 9 wifes in his backstory and chances are good he killed some of them (up to 7, as his first wife escaped and his last was killed by V).

[masamune1]

Oh, cool. We are getting somewhere here. Sight and emotions are not really comparable. We can tell when someone lacks sight, and a person can generally tell themselves when they lack sight. It is easy to observe and detect. Emotions and feelings are not. If someone fakes an emotion well enough, it is going to be indistinguishable to an outside observer and also to themselves. At that point, you have essentially you fake it to you make it and actually wind up becoming what you are faking. This is an observable psychological phenomenon, believe it or not.

I meant more in the sense that both sight and emotion are subjective experiences, not in terms of how they are observed.

Though with regards to that, the only difference is that its easier to tell if someone is blind than if they are emotionally stunted (well, usually). Its not impossible to observe or to detect emotions, and a trained observer who knows what to look for can often tell the difference, especially if there is other evidence piling up.

Also, just because you fake an emotion well enough doesn't mean you feel it. Its possible to fake it and know you are faking it- actors, con men and many others do it all the time. It might be the case that many start feeling the emotion they are faking, but that doesn't sound like a universal rule. With psychopaths, they really can't feel certain emotions, or feel them in a shallow way, so they might say that they love someone and they might even mean it, but they don't, because they don't know what love is. Of course, you don't have to be a psychopath to make that particular mistake.

And of course you can have the inverse- an emotional person faking psychopathy, like a seeing man who pretends to be blind.


Now, we don't really know if Tarquin is fooling himself that he is capable of love. You as an outside observer seem to think so, but at least half the people in this thread don't seem to.

Now it may be the case that as our understanding of brain chemistry evolves we reach a point where we can point to specific sections of the brain and specific chemicals which are released and say "That is love." And it is probably the case that true sociopaths lack whatever this biological process is, in the same way that blind people lack the biological process of sight.

But seeing as how it is unlikely that the Giant will have Tarquin undergo a futuristic CAT scan for our curiosity, we don't actually know what he feels or doesn't feel. We can also speculate based on his actions. And I observe that yes, he displays a complete disregard for human life on a regular basis. He also does not disregard the lives of those close to him even when it would be to his own advantage.

I mean, Nale himself displays some of these tendencies. He murders a lot of people and doesn't think of them as anything other than a way to get attention from the Order. AND YET it is very clear that he and Sabine are in love. It's an evil love, but can you really look at their interactions and tell me that the Giant doesn't think evil psychos can also love?


I can see that Sabine and Nale are in love; but again, I would distinguish that from compassionate love (though it is romantic love). They are still self-centered. Though I suppose I can but that they feel that more than Tarquin does. I think we can all agree that Nale treats Sabine better than Tarquin does his kids, and that he and Sabine get along better.

I'm more open to Tarquin being a psychopath- actually incapable of compassion. Nale is mildly capable compassion with regards to at least one specific hell-spawned-bitch. Tarquin might actually not be, based on what I've seen.

And yeah, I know that its unlikely that it will be confirmed for definite one way or the other, but if I had to pick a side I'd go with "soulless bastard". I do think that Tarquin is the Giant attempting to deconstruct that type of affably evil, family values, lawful villain, the guy everyone seems to root for because he appears to have standards or run an orderly society, and who has charming arguments and can seem to be generous; but based on how he sees Xykon (born evil, still evil), Thog ("Its weird- no matter how many people he kills, people still cheer for him") and others, I think his arc is going to end with someone accusing him of being a monster incapable of love, maybe before or after he does something truly heinous that actually shows it.

Yes, I can accept that people have a different opinion of Tarquin- I just don't buy it. Based on what I see, good chance he is heartless; and yes, definitely cold.

[masamune1]

It doesn't follow that they don't either, is what I am saying. And frankly, what is Tarquin's need? Having some sort of successor or legacy, I suppose. He's clearly willing to sacrifice other legitimate interests for this goal.

But why do people decide to have kids at all, if not for this very reason? There is no moral imperative to have children. It certainly does not align with our own self interest so far as it can be defined it terms of economic security and personal pleasures. (Tarquin happens to have both in excess, but still.) We have children out of a biological desire to pass on our genes which manifests in various social and emotional ways. We also believe that our love for our children will bring us greater pleasure in life, even though studies have shown this is demonstrably untrue. And frankly it's morally bankrupt to think having our own children is better than adopting those who lives in poverty.

Having children-- rather than adopting, for example-- is actually a selfish and kind of irrational act. It's just one that 95% of society deems OK. We already know that Tarquin is selfish. Wanting children, and trying to look after them, is the sole bit of irrationality he seems to possess, and it is the one thing he has in common with 95% of the world.

I think I'll just pass on this and say we have a difference of opinion or two on the matter.

I think one giant debate on the nature of love is enough.

I'll just say this- its true that everyone is narcissistic to a certain extent; Tarquin is narcissistic to a much bigger extent. And there are things he lacks-emotionally and morally- that other parents do not.

[Captain Morgan]

Fair enough, masamune. I am disappointed though. This was getting fun.


We don't really have any proof that variable W exists. And even if it does, Tarquin by his own words has informed that he can hold the leash on his allies, like he did with Malak himself.


He had only proven he was capable of that when he could convince them that Nale was useful. Nale was doing everything he could at that point to prevent this.

And really? No proof? High level Psion with a likely propensity for murder gets mad because Nale murdered one of six people she might actually care about? If not proof, it is as reasonable interference as any made in this thread.


Variable B, I don't think it matters to Tarquin at all, beyond maybe pretending to care out of pride and to keep Face "he killed my friend, I'm supposed to do something about it or I will lose face before the rest of my paws. Plus, I really liked that Ming Vase, I must punish that brat for breaking it before the rabble starts to think they can break my favorite objects without consequences."


Anyway, all the variables you have mentioned, add up to a single variable: Tarquin realizing that he will never be able to manipulate Nale into playing the role He assigned to him in His Big Screenplay

No, it doesn't. Again, this is reductionist reasoning.


Nale had just told Tarquin what he wanted from him: Nothing. If Tarquin wanted to recover his relationship with his Son, he had first to allow him fly alone.

Truly Flying alone here would have likely meant allowing Lauren, who was standing right there, to murder him. If not now, it likely would have happened eventually.




The theme of the child who becomes rebelious in order to reafirm his own personality, is a classic theme in parenting. The inevitable moment in which you have to step down and allow your children to become adults and thus independent. And the normal reaction is to let your offspring go, not to stab him in the chest.

Sure, but normally the rebellious child doesn't murder your buddy and have a desire to do it to you. I mean, do you guys really think that Nale's perfect world doesn't end with him conquering his father's empire, probably through the Gates somehow?


Tarquin is damaged. Very damaged.

Well, yeah. Damaged people can still care about things. They do it in damaged ways.




Nale was a psycho, yes. But at least he felt something for Sabine. Tarquin, on the other hand, has 9 wifes in his backstory and chances are good he killed some of them (up to 7, as his first wife escaped and his last was killed by V).

Now who is saying things without proof? And even if he did kill them, there is no reason to assume he can't be more capable of fatherly love than than he is romantic love. Nale might be the reverse for all we know.

[wolfdreams01]

Cold =/= Emotionless.


Sorry, I just dropped in to say that this is totally incorrect. In fact, if you actually Google "Emotionless synonyms" one of the synonyms that actually pops right out at you is, indeed, COLD.

In other words, because you (and possibly other people) are using the wrong definition of "cold" (you appear to be using your own personal definition rather than the generally accepted terminology that the rest of the world uses) you are totally misunderstanding the question and talking at cross purposes to the rest of us. This discussion is pointless unless we're all clear on what "cold" means in this context, and what it does not. Some of you appear to be unclear on that, and that's the first order of business to resolve before any progress can be made in this debate.

:-)

[Porthos]

Sorry, I just dropped in to say that this is totally incorrect. In fact, if you actually Google "Emotionless synonyms" one of the synonyms that actually pops right out at you is, indeed, COLD.

In other words, because you (and possibly other people) are using the wrong definition of "cold" (you appear to be using your own personal definition rather than the generally accepted terminology that the rest of the world uses) you are totally misunderstanding the question and talking at cross purposes to the rest of us. This discussion is pointless unless we're all clear on what "cold" means in this context, and what it does not.

:-)

Words can have more than one accepted popular defintion you know.

[wolfdreams01]

Words can have more than one accepted popular defintion you know.

So now individual preferences for how a word is defined are more important than the dictionary? So if I go to a restaurant and order steak from a waiter, I'm entitled to get angry because he should somehow know that my PERSONAL definition of "steak" is "chicken"?

You live in society, which means that when you interact with society, you're expected to know SOCIETY's definitions of the words you're using. Not vice versa.

Online definitions are by default the "popular" current ones. We're talking Google here, not an ancient edition of the Webster Dictionary.

[Kish]

If you want to chalk up a point to yourself while the other people in this thread keep right on debating over and around you, keep doing what you're doing. If you want to communicate, on the other hand, I'd suggest considering that, if the OP had meant to say "Tarquin is not completely emotionless," a better thread title would have been, "Tarquin is not completely emotionless."

[Porthos]

So now individual preferences for how a word is defined are more important than the dictionary?

Last time I checked, there were multiple definitions in dictionaries for many words. :smallsmile:

Also, last time I checked, words evolve. It's just language at work, whether you like it or not. I've made the comparison before and I'll make it again. A person has about the same chance stopping language evolving as King Canute had in stopping the tide from coming in. :smallwink:


So if I go to a restaurant and order steak from a waiter, I'm entitled to get angry because he should somehow know that my PERSONAL definition of "steak" is "chicken"?

That's pretty strawmanny if you ask me. But if that was meant to be a serious criticism and not a rant, I'll answer seriously. Context, as in almost all things, matters. When people call Tarquin 'cold', especially if they then talk about why they view him as cold, it's not really that hard for most people to see what they mean and why they are using that term.

OTOH, if someone ordered steak and got chicken instead nearly no one would expect it. Furthermore, almost no one would accept it in that context because chicken isn't a steak.. :smallsmile:

See, this argument nearly always falls flat just as it falls flat when someone says, "Oh, yeah? Well I'll just go around saying 'Flurgwutilly' when I mean 'Compassion' and you have to accept it". Because, no, I don't have to accept it because it's only one person doing it.

Now if you somehow managed to convince thousands or millions of people to use the word 'Flurgwutilly' to mean 'Compassion', then I would have to accept it. Because that's just how language works. One might say it is a perfectly cromulent facet of language. :smallwink:

[Captain Morgan]

Yeah, I don't think there is any reason to doubt that Tarquin is cold. That doesn't also mean he is incapable of having "warmth."

[Scow2]

Or if you want Segens medical definition of love, "Psychology: The personal experience and manifest expression of emotional attachment or bonding to another person".Well, Tarquin has bent over backward in expressing emotional attachment and bonding to BOTH sons, as well as his Adventuring-Buddy friends.


And just because somebody appears to demonstrate an emotion doesn't mean they aren't faking it, or actually feeling something else.

Emotions are universal, in that they transcend cultures and nations and ethnicity, though some people truly do not feel love, or only feel it shallowly. Different cultures express it differently or value it differently, but they don't describe it differently. If they do, they are not describing love, but something else, even if they call it love, like if I discovered snow and decided to call it "fire", or "wood".

Objects (to use the word broadly) are not bound by their definitions. If people have two different definitions of a term, then they are usually thinking of two different things. There are universal definitions of love and there are universal definitions of the different kinds of love- love is an emotion, compassion and other forms of love are emotions, and emotions are universal. It may not be the case that every single person experiences them, but they are a general characteristic of human beings and many living things. What we are arguing about is semantics.

[quote]Tarquin doesn't simply resemble a sociopath or a psychopath; he displays overwhelming traits of those conditions. All of his behaviour, including his supposed love for his sons, can be understood in sociopathic / psychopathic terms, and until the Giant proves otherwise I'm inclined to think of his as either a sociopath or a psychopath. And compassion isn't something that either of those understand or really feel.

And I do believe I said that I wasn't going to say anything else on the matter and didn't want to snowball this into a bad argument. So if you will excuse me, adieu.Psychopathy is a catch-all for a lot of things. I've seen people labled as "Sociopaths" whenever they put their values above another's life - which is a universal trait in all but the most cowardly and sheepish people.

When it comes to compassion and love and not-killing-other-people, "Sociopathy" (Defined as "Lack of Compassion, Sympathy and/or Empathy") is NOT a binary thing, but instead a two-axis continuum of intensity and scope. Tarquin has demonstrated average intensity of empathy and compassion, but a VERY narrow scope (His friends, and his sons. Maybe a wife or three, such as the Draketooth woman)

So now individual preferences for how a word is defined are more important than the dictionary? So if I go to a restaurant and order steak from a waiter, I'm entitled to get angry because he should somehow know that my PERSONAL definition of "steak" is "chicken"?The context and intent of a word being used is more important than a dictionary ever will be. To use the same absurdist reduction you did to get "Steak Means Chicken", you're saying people can only communicate if they have dictionaries out and look up each word before choosing the one that most precisely matches the situation.

Dictionaries hold common (Or distinct obscure) hazy attempts at definitions of words that try to capture the essence of the meaning of the word to as much extent as possible to use other words to define one that has its own inherent meaning (And meaning trancends words.). Their precision is like that of a blindfolded lumberjack dancing around with an axe in the middle of a forest to a practiced carpenter.

[Origomar]

The way i saw it was like this. Nale has been a huge thorn in his side for a long time, and the only reason he was not disposed of like everyone else who fails tarquinn was because he was his son. the minute his son essentially renounced his dad, saying he didn't want anything from him or in other words "stop treating me like your son" he did just that, and killed him.


Nale was never useful to tarquinn, he just needed the other members of the party to believe that he was useful because of his past behavoir. The fact that Nale failed so many times, yet tarquinn was able to be like "ok well ill clean up your mess again and give you another chance" shows that he put up with a lot more than he would from a regular "pawn". The reason he killed him is that nale himself refused special treatment.

[The Oni]

Nale has, and never was useful to tarquinn, he just needed the other members of the party to believe that he was useful because of his past behavoir. The fact that Nale failed so many times, yet tarquinn was able to be like "ok well ill clean up your mess again and give you another chance" shows that he put up with a lot more than he would from a regular "pawn". The reason he killed him is that nale himself refused special treatment.

^ Exactly. Tarquin was willing to forgive him, but Nale didn't want to be forgiven. So Tarquin gave him exactly what he asked for.

[The Pilgrim]

Truly Flying alone here would have likely meant allowing Lauren, who was standing right there, to murder him. If not now, it likely would have happened eventually.

So? Then at least the blood of his son wouldn't be in his hands. And if Nale could escape, and even kill Malack, then he had a chance to at least flee from the others, too.

Anyway, "Tarquin just gave Nale what he asked for" and "Tarquin killed Nale to protect him from a worse fate" can't be defended at the same time. It's either one or the other.



Sure, but normally the rebellious child doesn't murder your buddy and have a desire to do it to you. I mean, do you guys really think that Nale's perfect world doesn't end with him conquering his father's empire, probably through the Gates somehow?

Of course Nale would crush his Father the very moment he adquired enough power to do so. That's, after all, what drove him out to the adventure in the first place.

But Tarquin regards Nale as totally incompetent, and is confident on His ability to stay always a hundred steps ahead of him. So arguing that he killed Nale for self-defense (as he had proven to be dangerous by murdering Malack), is like arguing that I killed my cat for self-defense because he managed to eat my parakeet (that's how Tarquin sees it)

[The Oni]

Not hardly. Malack was probably on par with Tarquin in terms of raw power and almost as well-prepared. It just so happened that there was an opportunity to exploit Malack's most glaring weakness and Nale took it. It follows that if Malack could be killed by a lucky stroke by Nale (and his companions), then Tarquin could, too.

[King of Nowhere]

This debate got too long to follow. But

But that wasn't the only variable. Variable Y was that Nale didn't want any special treatment from Tarquin, and so Tarquin respected this by treating Nale as he would anyone else who wronged him. Variable Z is that Nale had just proven himself a significant enough threat to engineer the death of a high level party member, and he would probably try it again eventually. Variable W is that the rest of Tarquin's allies wanted Nale dead at that point and Tarquin would have to work to prevent this. Variable M is that Nale was a mad dog who pretty much couldn't be reasoned with. Variable B was that he had just killed his best friend. Variable R was that this cost him a valuable resource.

And what did Nale have going for him: Nothing but Variable L, which was Tarquin's love for his son (or as close an approximation of love as he is capable of or what have you.)

You are acting like the equation was X = Tarquin kills Nale. The equation is actually X+Y+Z+W+M+B+R-L = Tarquin kills Nale. As someone else said, circumstances do matter, and reductionist thinking makes for poor reasoning. X can be a factor, maybe even the BIGGEST factor, but that does not mean the others had no part to play.

And as an aside, just because Variable L did not outweigh the other variables does not mean that L did not exist at all.
But I just wanted to quote this and say that, as a scientist, I really appreciated the mathematical modelization of the problem at hand :smalltongue:

[nobodyknows]

It's interesting that this is still going on, especially given that I would think that part of Tarquin's role is to play into the whole theme of "evil people are complex", which is why Tarquin appears to like Elan so much despite Elan's failure to understand this:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html

His ability to get along with Malack despite the disagreement is also telling:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html Given that there is this tendency to think that villains area always enemies or that villainous alliances are extremely unstable.

As for Tarquin and Nale, yeah, he clearly cared about Nale. If you want to look at it in another way, then Tarquin is very lawful, right? Well, Tarquin at the end of the first page of comic 913 and beginning of the second as well as his plan in 912: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0912.html makes it clear that he was deceiving Malack in comics 821: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0821.html and 822 http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html where he used business to justify not killing Nale. This was never about business to Tarquin, so he pretty blatantly lied to his long-standing friend to Nale, even though his word as a man of honor was important enough to emphasize to Elan on their first meeting: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html . Even his actions to Laurin in preventing Nale's death in 913 saying that she needed to stay professional to allow Tarquin to talk to his son is really him acting unprofessional and bending the rules to get a special favor from Laurin about the matter.

So, what do you really want to call it when the man is violating his own sense of honor for the sake of Nale? It doesn't seem plausible as pure narcissism as the purely narcissistic way to deal with Nale is to simply kill him long ago and to end the error forever. Doing this would increase his standing with Malack who from 854 mentioned above believes that Tarquin is unfair about his family, and in 723: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html is accused of Malack of being "warm-blooded".

We can say that Tarquin is just trying to manipulate Nale, but I think this is a failure to recognize the difference between Tarquin's naturally pragmatic tendencies, and his motivators. Nobody is going to say that Tarquin is a model of sanity, but modelling him as just completely unconcerned seems wrong. There do appear to be posters who can understand how he did what he did. Even if we argue that Tarquin should have taken some 3rd option, maybe it really didn't enter his brain in the moment, maybe there is a third option preventing it from existing, maybe despite his poker-face he wasn't as emotionally in control as we like to think he was and instead of seeing all of the strategies he was caught on a binary either/or. I know a point mentioned earlier is that many of the people who are very critical towards Tarquin may simply be psychologically dissimilar to him, and thus find him harder to understand in a manner conserving as much of his sanity as possible.

I think another interesting possible measure may also be how he acts in the aftermath. Will Laurin try to act consoling to Tarquin?(as if she believes he loved his son and is surprised he killed Nale) Will cracks show up in his poker-face?(He just lost two people he cared about, both deaths being his utter failure, and where Elan is very likely to be harsh to him)

[Scow2]

But Tarquin regards Nale as totally incompetent, and is confident on His ability to stay always a hundred steps ahead of him. So arguing that he killed Nale for self-defense (as he had proven to be dangerous by murdering Malack), is like arguing that I killed my cat for self-defense because he managed to eat my parakeet (that's how Tarquin sees it)
NO! Tarquin DOES NOT consider Nale to be "totally incompetant." He had firm faith in his son's ability (Both sons, actually) - probably FAR more than they deserve. He also didn't blame Nale for the mis-timed swoop. In fact, he had such faith in Nale's competency as a leader that he was banking it to be enough to end the feud between his son and his best friend. Obviously, that didn't happen.

[nobodyknows]

So? Then at least the blood of his son wouldn't be in his hands. And if Nale could escape, and even kill Malack, then he had a chance to at least flee from the others, too.
I don't think Tarquin would think in this way. Tarquin strikes me as likely to be pretty consequentialist in his thinking, so invoking this act-failure to act moral distinction may not be part of his psychology. I know it's not a major part of my moral psychology.


Anyway, "Tarquin just gave Nale what he asked for" and "Tarquin killed Nale to protect him from a worse fate" can't be defended at the same time. It's either one or the other.
They're not logically inconsistent. Tarquin can arguably give Nale a death he asked for AND consider it a kind move because of the consequences of this killing. If you want to argue they are logically inconsistent, you're free to do so, but you'd need an argument.



But Tarquin regards Nale as totally incompetent, and is confident on His ability to stay always a hundred steps ahead of him. So arguing that he killed Nale for self-defense (as he had proven to be dangerous by murdering Malack), is like arguing that I killed my cat for self-defense because he managed to eat my parakeet (that's how Tarquin sees it)
Infallibly confident? Tarquin's not going to be an idiot about threats either. Malack isn't a parakeet, and Tarquin and his plans will inevitably involve risks and a need to control the variables. Nale is a variable that could negatively impact Tarquin in the future, maybe even in some very terrible way.(Nale doesn't have to just be competent, he could simply be lucky, or strike at the wrong time or so many other things.)

I mean, I don't see a strong self-defense coming up, but Tarquin does have reason to think Nale may be a continual threat to his plans, plans that he is very invested in, and plans that he cares about more than he cares about most human beings.(Tarquin is oriented towards tasks before people. He's probably really just low on agreeableness, despite his charm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness )

[The Pilgrim]

NO! Tarquin DOES NOT consider Nale to be "totally incompetant."

Yes, he does: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html)

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png Look at you! What are you, a protagonist? I'm so proud! Have you thwarted any villains yet?

:elan: We mostly run away or have mixed victories. Wait, does Nale count?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png Eh. Not really.

:elan: Then, no.

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png Well, you're still young.


It's interesting that this is still going on, especially given that I would think that part of Tarquin's role is to play into the whole theme of "evil people are complex"

What's complex in appling the Evil Overlord List to the core, lacking any moral or ethical compuction whatsoever, and spinning any outome into "haha, I expected this"?

If I had to name a complex villiain in this Comic, the crown goes to Redcloack, obviously (he got a whole book to explain his backstory, after all). Geez, even Xykon is more complex than Tarquin, if only because at least The Giant cared to tell us how he become a heartless monster (something he has still not done with Tarquin). And if we ever get a Prequel about Tarquin, I bet the central character will be Nale, not him.


They're not logically inconsistent. Tarquin can arguably give Nale a death he asked for AND consider it a kind move because of the consequences of this killing. If you want to argue they are logically inconsistent, you're free to do so, but you'd need an argument.

Yes, they are logically inconsistent, since Nale asked him to stop patronizing him, and Tarquin mercy-killing him would be, in fact, to keep patronizing him.


Malack isn't a parakeet,

It depends on the parakeet. You've obviously not met mine.

Jokes aside, my point is that Tarquin believes himself vastly superior to anyone else. So in his mind, Nale being a threat to X doesn't equals to Nale being a threat to himself.

[WindStruck]

I'm starting to think this debate is pointless. Probably need to wait a few strips to see the aftermath...

But anyway, yeah I would agree Tarquin is cold to others. As for his family and friends, I do not think so. Although he probably still is controlling and manipulative. :smallbiggrin:

[Reaver225]

So? Then at least the blood of his son wouldn't be in his hands. And if Nale could escape, and even kill Malack, then he had a chance to at least flee from the others, too.Personal responsibility.

Killing the person who killed his best friend.

Killing someone who poses a liability to his troops and his forces, so none of his forces would die.

Killing Nale so he wouldn't escape and come back to try again some time and possibly win (him believing in bardic theory KNOWS that villanous sons come back at the worst times to mess things up).

Not trusting anyone else to end Nale's life cleanly.

The thing is, Tarquin HAS reason to want Nale dead several times over.

Tarquin didn't hold back any more, stopped patronizing Nale, and Nale took the full force of the blow, and died. Anything less than full force against Nale WOULD be patronizing against him.

[The Pilgrim]

Personal responsibility.

You actually made a decent list of things Tarquin doesn't gives a crap for.

Let's see...

- Killing the person who killed his best friend.
Tarquin doesn't give a crap about Malack. Geez, he was manipulating all this so he could force Malack swallow his feud for three chindren killed. And was still willing to manipulate his remaining pawns so they could accept the death of Malack and his murderer, Nale, as his successor.

Now if you had said "Killing the person who destroyed his best asset", then you would have a point.

- Killing someone who poses a liability to his troops and his forces, so none of his forces would die.
Tarquin doesn't gives a crap about the lives of his troops. As shown in the Arena when the Tyranosaur devoured a lot of them.

- Killing Nale so he wouldn't escape and come back to try again some time and possibly win (him believing in bardic theory KNOWS that villanous sons come back at the worst times to mess things up).
As Tarquin himself said, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html), he did not give a crap about Nale attempting to seize power from him. He only cared that he did not attempted it the proper way - His way.

- Not trusting anyone else to end Nale's life cleanly.
Tarquin doesn't gives a crap.

- The thing is, Tarquin HAS reason to want Nale dead several times over.

The thing is, killing Nale doesn't means Tarquin is showing personal responsibility. More on the contrary. Because Nale is the way he is because of Tarquin. So if Tarquin had to be honest about all this, he would begin by commiting suicide.

But, the thing is, Tarquin doesn't gives a crap about Nale's morality. He does about his lack of style.

[Parallel Pain]

I think it's important to remind some people that Tarquin "supporters" for a lack of a better word, agree that he is very evil, pragmatic, calculating, and a narcissist. Just that his act of killing Nale is not an example of such.

It also comes down to personal beliefs in a few things:

Do you believe a parent must put his children above everything else? And by everything else I include your other friends and family, the law and society, your life goals and accomplishments.
If your child committed homicide, regardless of the victim, do you think you should cover up for him?
What if the child wants to turn himself in to death row? Should you forcibly confine him to save his life? Or should you let him turn himself in to certain death?
Which one of the choices above demonstrates parental love? If you were able to choose, do the others exclude parental love completely?

When children defy their parents wishes, should the parent always relent?
If your daughter actually want to become a prostitute when you had planned for her to become a doctor, should you let her do what she want?
If you force her to become a doctor, do you love her? If you let her be a prostitute, do you love her?



Stealing is bad.
If I haven't ate for 5 days and breaks into a bakery to steal a loaf of bread, I have committed a crime. Am I bad?
What if the reason I haven't ate for 5 days was I've been laid off from my job? What if it was because I lost all my 6figure pay check at the casino? What if, for the same reasons, I haven't ate for only 24 hours, not 5 days? Is there a difference, or is stealing all the same?

If Einstein invented a time travel machine but also worked out a way that killing Hitler when he was a harmless street artist wouldn't cause Red Alert or anything equivalent, but was the only way, is he justified to do so?

The emperor orders one of his sons to commit suicide to prevent a succession crisis everyone could see coming down the road. Does the emperor still love this son?

My son fakes cry so I buy him a toy. Does he still love me?
I break into my uncle's house and trash it because I hate him. My father lies to him and pretend to him that it was an accident. Does he care about his brother? If he did it mainly because he doesn't want to deal with open hostility between the two of us, does this mean he's just lazy and doesn't care about us? If I trashed my uncle's house to openly spite him, and my father knows it as well, does my father care about me?

[Ward.]

Eh, I can see where tarquins coming from. He's the leader of a continent spanning shadow empire, he's agreed to lead his friends for the last 30 odd years and he's tried countless times to shape nale into a villian capable of keeping himself alive.

At this point in time he has no choice, nale outright said he was going to continue being a problem and as a leader tarquin has to make the tough choices, such as letting his friends death go unpunished just to ensure that his teams goals didn't go down the crapper or recruiting his killer in order to maintain the status quo.

[The Oni]

Tarquin doesn't give a crap about Malack. Geez, he was manipulating all this so he could force Malack swallow his feud for three chindren killed. And was still willing to manipulate his remaining pawns so they could accept the death of Malack and his murderer, Nale, as his successor.

He cares about Malack, but he also cared about his son. He was in a delicate position of having to choose, clearly his friend had been wronged but he couldn't allow Nale to die then and he didn't want to lose a friend and an ally. I see no reason not to believe him when he said he was giving Nale a chance to prove himself. It wouldn't be out of character at all.

Allowing Nale to live after he killed Malack would have shattered his party and therefore his regime, hands-down. Malack forestalled his vengeance and he died for it. If he asked the rest of the party to do the same, they would never have gone for it.

[Reaver225]

You actually made a decent list of things Tarquin doesn't gives a crap for.

Let's see...

- Killing the person who killed his best friend.
Tarquin doesn't give a crap about Malack. Geez, he was manipulating all this so he could force Malack swallow his feud for three chindren killed. And was still willing to manipulate his remaining pawns so they could accept the death of Malack and his murderer, Nale, as his successor.See this? Here's a magnificent pieces of amazing news:

It's possible to manipulate people that you care about.

Malack couldn't be brought back - or if he could, then killing him barely matters.


Now if you had said "Killing the person who destroyed his best asset", then you would have a point.Here's another point - friends can also be assets. In a fight, or any plan, you use what you've got. O'Chul and all the Sapphire Guard were friends to Hinjo, and guess what? He used them all the way up in a valiant, noble effort. Tarquin of course sees everything as something useful or something not - but that doesn't also mean he didn't see Malack as his best friend.

If he calls a vampire his best friend, discusses private details with him, confides in him, and trusts the vampire to build him a giant statue after he dies, what else would you call Malack? A disposable minion?


- Killing someone who poses a liability to his troops and his forces, so none of his forces would die.
Tarquin doesn't gives a crap about the lives of his troops. As shown in the Arena when the Tyranosaur devoured a lot of them. Nope. They don't grow on trees (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/t1H0jNzDgfbNgUCY84S.gif)


- Not trusting anyone else to end Nale's life cleanly.
Tarquin doesn't gives a crap.By your words, with no proof.


- The thing is, Tarquin HAS reason to want Nale dead several times over.

The thing is, killing Nale doesn't means Tarquin is showing personal responsibility. More on the contrary. Because Nale is the way he is because of Tarquin. So if Tarquin had to be honest about all this, he would begin by commiting suicide.

But, the thing is, Tarquin doesn't gives a crap about Nale's morality. He does about his lack of style.And how, pray, would committing suicide help with the matter of Nale? Are you really going to suggest any bad parent, if faced with a child who needs jail or the death sentence, commit suicide in order to take responsibility for their actions, as opposed to dealing with the person they helped bring up wrong?