Parental Difficulties.

[F.Harr]

I don't know if anyone else ever experienced this. for a while, I thought my dad was against me. And it was awful. I remember the day and the conversation when I figured out he wasn't. We had a MUCH better relationship thereafter. It doesn't look like Nale ever figured that out. I feel sorry for him on that account. It can't be good to never learn that your parents are really on your side.

[Aolbain]

It might ease the process if your dad isn't a sociopathic warlord.

[Silverionmox]

It's a recurring theme. Roy, Haley, Elan, Nale, all have daddy issues... and V, Durkon, Belkar have issues with authority.

[littlebum2002]

“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.”

-Mark Twain (supposedly)

[The Pilgrim]

It becomes more interesting when you cross the fence to the other side and become the parent.

Then you can't help but vomiting at the notion of someone being capable
of killing his son, moreso in cold blood, no matter how rotten said child can be.

[Porthos]

It's a recurring theme. Roy, Haley, Elan, Nale, all have daddy issues...

Parent/child relationship issues is one of THE bedrocks of all storytelling. Ever since the first stories were told.

It keeps coming up time and time again in fiction because it is a mine that can never be exhausted.

[AutomatedTeller]

I don't think Tarquin was for Nale. Tarquin is a complete narcissist. If he actually cared about Nale, he would not have killed him - he would have said "you want nothing from me? How about me not killing you right now?"

In a NORMAL family, when the kid thinks the parent is against them, they find out later that they were wrong. That's often part of growing up.

[Warren Dew]

I don't know if anyone else ever experienced this. for a while, I thought my dad was against me. And it was awful. I remember the day and the conversation when I figured out he wasn't. We had a MUCH better relationship thereafter. It doesn't look like Nale ever figured that out. I feel sorry for him on that account. It can't be good to never learn that your parents are really on your side.
I think Nale knew all along that Tarquin was on his side. It's just that Nale didn't want Tarquin on his side.

[Tock Zipporah]

It might ease the process if your dad isn't a sociopathic warlord.

Best. Reply. Ever.

[F.Harr]

It might ease the process if your dad isn't a sociopathic warlord.

Fair point. But children of non-psychopathic warlords have, perhaps, similar problems at times.


I don't think Tarquin was for Nale. Tarquin is a complete narcissist. If he actually cared about Nale, he would not have killed him - he would have said "you want nothing from me? How about me not killing you right now?"

In a NORMAL family, when the kid thinks the parent is against them, they find out later that they were wrong. That's often part of growing up.

Not all. Sometimes that takes a LONG time. I was luck I did that in my teens.

But I think Tarquin was. Or Nale would have been dead a long time ago. Not killing Nale was likely the most he could do form him.

[pgrmdave]

But I think Tarquin was. Or Nale would have been dead a long time ago. Not killing Nale was likely the most he could do form him.

No, not killing Nale kept another chess piece in play. Tarquin wasn't trying to help Nale achieve Nale's goals, he was keeping Nale alive to achieve Tarquin's own goals. Once he was no longer useful, he was discarded. Tarquin is manipulative - in fact, nearly his entire character can be summed up as "manipulative narcissist". He plans his own goals and seeks to use those around him to those ends. He's damn good at it too - he even makes people believe that he's helping them out, when in fact he views them as simple tools to achieve his goals.

[F.Harr]

No, not killing Nale kept another chess piece in play. Tarquin wasn't trying to help Nale achieve Nale's goals, he was keeping Nale alive to achieve Tarquin's own goals. Once he was no longer useful, he was discarded. Tarquin is manipulative - in fact, nearly his entire character can be summed up as "manipulative narcissist". He plans his own goals and seeks to use those around him to those ends. He's damn good at it too - he even makes people believe that he's helping them out, when in fact he views them as simple tools to achieve his goals.

Nale hasn't been "useful" for a long time. He's more or less the definition of "loose cannon".

You may still be right, but I doubt it's that easy. We are all conditioned by nature to want well for our offspring, or they wouldn't survive toddlerhood.

Also, just because Tarquin's an evil bastard, doesn't mean he can't love. It just means it not necessarily a healthy love.

[Jaycemonde]

It's always possible that Tarquin killing Nale was an act of mercy--what the others in Tarquin's team would have done would have been exponentially worse, as they had no reason to feel any attachment to him, and by disowning Tarquin as his father Nale essentially threw away any chance at Tarquin being able to get away with talking his friends out of doing something really bad.

[F.Harr]

That might be how Tarquin puts it, ultimately. We have to remember, though, even if we accept Tarquin as loving, he's also evil. It's Nale's punnishment, one that Tarquin had no reason to withhold. And the others would no doubt have been crueler with Nale.

[Weiser_Cain]

I'd just like to point out sometimes it isn't going to work out, my step-dad still tries to fight me and he's pushing 80. You just have to move on even if he hasn't.

[Scow2]

No, not killing Nale kept another chess piece in play. Tarquin wasn't trying to help Nale achieve Nale's goals, he was keeping Nale alive to achieve Tarquin's own goals. Once he was no longer useful, he was discarded. Tarquin is manipulative - in fact, nearly his entire character can be summed up as "manipulative narcissist". He plans his own goals and seeks to use those around him to those ends. He's damn good at it too - he even makes people believe that he's helping them out, when in fact he views them as simple tools to achieve his goals.Keeping Nale removed SEVERAL more important "Chess pieces" from play than keeping just Nale did.

Just because Nale believed his father never saw him as anything more than just a pawn doesn't mean his father didn't actually see him as anything more. If Tarquin had seen Nale as "Just another Chesspiece", he would have removed Nale from play LONG ago to save 'the game', because the piece was destructive.

Tarquin WAS trying to help Nale achieve his goals, whenever those goals weren't wholely destructive to his own. Nale was too selfish to compromise, and disowned his own father.

[Amphiox]

Parent/child relationship issues is one of THE bedrocks of all storytelling. Ever since the first stories were told.

It keeps coming up time and time again in fiction because it is a mine that can never be exhausted.

Writers often write what they know. And everyone has a parent....

[Anansiil]

No, not killing Nale kept another chess piece in play. Tarquin wasn't trying to help Nale achieve Nale's goals, he was keeping Nale alive to achieve Tarquin's own goals. Once he was no longer useful, he was discarded. Tarquin is manipulative - in fact, nearly his entire character can be summed up as "manipulative narcissist". He plans his own goals and seeks to use those around him to those ends. He's damn good at it too - he even makes people believe that he's helping them out, when in fact he views them as simple tools to achieve his goals.

I think that if we look at it from Tarquin's point of view, Tarquin Was helping Nale achieve Nale's goals. I think that the most manipulative people cannot , effectively, distinguish between helping others and helping themselves; Tarquin's plan involved Nale's happiness, and putting Nale into a position to reach Nale's happiness was an act of love. Tarquin, and I for that matter, had a hard time understanding Nale's opposition to this help. Nale wanted independence, whether he would succeed or fail. To Tarquin, and myself, that is odd; a pragmatist would be happy to achieve their goals; doing so on one's own merit is preferable, of course, but "business before pleasure" takes precedence. Nale opts for pleasure over business.

If my brother and I were evil, we would look like Nale and Tarquin, respectively, lol.

-------------

Keeping Nale removed SEVERAL more important "Chess pieces" from play than keeping just Nale did.

Just because Nale believed his father never saw him as anything more than just a pawn doesn't mean his father didn't actually see him as anything more. If Tarquin had seen Nale as "Just another Chesspiece", he would have removed Nale from play LONG ago to save 'the game', because the piece was destructive.

Tarquin WAS trying to help Nale achieve his goals, whenever those goals weren't wholely destructive to his own. Nale was too selfish to compromise, and disowned his own father.

You are like my very own plant in the audience :)

--------------

It becomes more interesting when you cross the fence to the other side and become the parent.

Then you can't help but vomiting at the notion of someone being capable
of killing his son, moreso in cold blood, no matter how rotten said child can be.

Really? Let us replacing 'killing' with the more common disowning/letting-go-of. Does the thought of disowning your child turn your stomach?

This is something that I have wondered about. I am not crazy the way that Tarquin is, but my thinking is similar enough that I feel that I can understand Tarquin's motivations. 'Tarquin has been bending over backwards to protect his son. He has allowed Nale to do as he pleases, but has always hoped that Nale would succeed and make him, Tarquin, proud. Nale abjectly refused to partake of any chance to reconcile with Tarquin. With no hope of ever reconciling with Nale, Tarquin decided it would be best to kill Nale. All, constructive, possibilities have been exhausted.

So, returning to my point, if there were no possibilities for your child to ever reconcile with you AND your child was actively interested in working against you, do you think you could disown your child, or perhaps allow your child to self-destruct? I tend to think of the future and how it could be constructed; take away all possible futures and I am left with no reason for positive affection. (I don't have kids, but I do like kids and plan to have some.)
What I am asking is, as a parent, is there a point where you could 'let go' of your child and be relatively okay with that? Tarquin is evil and a tyrant so 'letting go' readily includes murder. Normal people might abandon their child to their fate.
Does the thought of abandoning your child to his/her fate turn your stomach?

[pendell]

Really? Let us replacing 'killing' with the more common disowning/letting-go-of. Does the thought of disowning your child turn your stomach?


Hello, parent here. Not a parent for very long at all, and with very little experience, but parent nonethelesss.


*All other things being equal*, your child is your greatest treasure and your prized possession. In a very real sense, your life ends the day your child is born, or perhaps the day you got married. Because from that moment henceforth it's no longer all about you -- a major focus of your life and attention is raising your child, saving up for college, teaching them, preparing them, making them functional human beings. Parents no longer live for themselves, but for their children. Way I see it, a father has a duty to raise up sons and daughters who are responsible, independent, compassionate and brave. The children are our hopes and dreams, because anything of us in mortal terms that carries on down the ages will be carried by them, when they take the torch from our hands.

And because of that, it SHOULD be a matter of greatest woe and sadness to cause pain or inflict harm on our children, and especially not to *kill* them. Because in killing them, we kill ourselves, our hopes and dreams for the future they carry.

And yet.

The problem is it's a common temptation in parenting, especially when there's only one, to give into what I call "special snowflake" syndrome. To have so much affection and compassion for your child that you can't bear to cause them discomfort when they *need* to have it done. To look the other way when they cheat on tests , or bully other kids in school, or aren't putting in the effort they should.

I appeal to the teachers here: Who are the kids you have the most trouble with? I'm betting it's either the ones who don't have functional parents at home, or parents who, rather than doing anything when you call them to tell them Jimmy is disrupting class, show up en masse to defend him without consideration for anything else. Jimmy can do no wrong, and the result is that he gets worse and worse because he know he'll be excused and protected regardless of what he does.

When you're a parent, the odds are good that functionally you're going to have be meaner to them than anyone else they know. Who else is going to tell them they're going wrong and need to shape up? The TV? I appeal to the teachers again -- almost nothing a teacher or a sunday school teacher or a pastor or a coach or a sergeant can do with a kid means anything if those lessons aren't being reinforced and acted on at home.


And the flip side of that is ... just as you're responsible for their training and discipline, so you're responsible for cleaning up their messes. Little Sarah gets in the car while you're not looking and backs over the neighbor's mailbox? Guess whose wallet the repair is coming out of? That's right. Yours. Little Johnny beats the living tar out of a little girl three years younger than he, and her angry father (who happens to be an airborne ranger) shows up at the door, guess who gets to go out to meet him at the door? That's right. You do.

That last situation is particularly appropriate. You don't want this stranger to give Johnny what's coming to him. So you step between him and Johnny. You apologize profusely. You pay the medical bills. But this is the most important thing ... you have to promise the other Dad that there will NEVER EVER be a recurrence. And then, when he's gone, you have to take Johnny aside and make sure that is a true statement.

You can't let an outsider give Johnny what's coming to him, so you've got to do it yourself.

That's especially true because, for events to reach the stage where Johnny thinks its right to beat up little girls, he got there by following YOUR example. His cowardly bullying is a direct reflection of what YOU put in him, either by your own example or by not keeping a careful enough watch to make sure he wasn't getting the wrong kinds of messages from other people.

So if Johnny steps far enough out of line that he's not just going through the normal growing pains but is becoming an active menace to other people, it's YOUR job, first and foremost , to rein him in. YOU made this mess, YOU need to clean it up.

Which means that, if despite your best efforts Johnny gets worse and YOU find out he's dealing drugs from his bedroom, it's YOUR hand that should be the first one to pick up the phone and call 911. You shouldn't wait to find out until the police bust in and drag him away, because they'll also have pointed questions for you as to what you were doing while all this was going on.

I saw something like this happen in real life. Single mom. Many children. Oldest boy took dad's leaving very badly (Dad ran off with another woman) and started behaving badly. Behaving badly to the point of seriously hurting his younger siblings physically.

Mom did the only thing she could do, because the boy had gone completely beyond her control -- she called the police, and had her own son taken to jail.

Because parents are responsible for their children. And if our children are an active menace to society, we bear the responsibility to end that menace. A big part of WHY they are a menace is because we raised them that way, after all. Just as we bear a share in making the mess, so we also must bear a share in cleaning it up.

That's why I don't condemn Tarquin for his action. Because while Nale made his own choices and has been his own man for years, a big , big part of the reason he's an untrustworthy snake is because Tarquin raised him that way, and indulged him when he should have been disciplining him. The mess, of having a serial murder for a son, is in large part of Tarquin's making. That means that Tarquin, and no one else, bears the responsibility to make sure his son stops killing.

It's different from us normal parents because we live in a different society. In *our* world, if we find our son is doing this, we call the police. But Tarquin IS the police. He is the highest law in the land. His word is life and death for every member of those legions. He's also a soldier on the field of battle facing up to a soldier who murdered one of his own comrades on the field of battle -- probably the worst possible crime in the military dictionary.

I have no doubt in my mind that, if any ordinary member of the legions had been caught red-handed in the murder of a team-mate, who gladly confessed and boasted about it to his commanding officer, the consequence would be immediate death. Not in the US army, but certainly in the Roman legions.

No commander worth his salt demands anything of his men he won't demand of himself. If there is a death penalty in the EOB for murder , with the aggravating circumstance that it is of a fellow soldier in the face of the enemy, then it is a law because Tarquin made it. What message does it send to his troops if he won't demand of himself or his son what he would certainly demand of any of them?

That's the essence of the lawful alignment. You can bend the rules, and you can twist the rules, and you can find alternative interpretations of the rules (Rule 401C: Any punishment can be deferred if the subject is too useful to kill), but you can't *break* the rules.

Tarquin had a responsibility to raise his son. Part of that responsibility is cleaning up after his son's messes , which means punishing Nale himself since he won't let anyone else do it. And when it became obvious that Nale was not only unsalvageable but was willing to violently reject any provision within the rules to keep him alive, it was left to Tarquin to put the final crowning touch on his utter failure as a father -- to kill the son he'd raised from birth as his own. To fulfill his last, final, and saddest duty as a parent -- to give him the final punishment for his crimes.


Tarquin made this mess. Now Tarquin has to clean it up. Not by passing the "cleaning up " over to the psion or some nameless henchman. Not by covering for his son -- that simply makes him an accessory to his son's crimes, and that would mean he would be unfit either to lead his adventuring party or to command the armies of the Empire.

That doesn't mean Tarquin has to like it.

If anything, this should be the worst moment of his life. He's not only lost his nearest and dearest , he's also testified to his own complete failure as a father and as a man. Nale's failure is HIS failure. But that doesn't mean he can simply excuse Nale or fob the job off on someone else. He's done that for too many years already.

It's time to end this. Realistically, in the culture and context as shown in the EOB, there is no other way it COULD end for Tarquin to still be Tarquin.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Warren Dew]

Pendell, as a parent, I think your post is excellent. As a military veteran, I have to quibble slightly at the last sentence of this part:


It's different from us normal parents because we live in a different society. In *our* world, if we find our son is doing this, we call the police. But Tarquin IS the police. He is the highest law in the land. His word is life and death for every member of those legions. He's also a soldier on the field of battle facing up to a soldier who murdered one of his own comrades on the field of battle -- probably the worst possible crime in the military dictionary.
Nale is not one of Tarquin's soldiers. Tarquin may think that, initially, but in fact, Nale is more like a fifth column - an enemy from within that is working against Tarquin's empire.

From a legalistic standpoint, Malack had temporarily joined the Linear Guild, in charge of which was Nale. Given the Linear Guild is an evil organization, one could argue that Nale had the power of life and death over anyone in it, such that his killing of Malack was legitimate.

If Tarquin is acting based on military law, what he is figuring out in page 2 panel 6 of this comic is that Nale is not a disobedient soldier of his own army, but rather an enemy of the regime - more like a spy than a traitor.

Of course, spies are considered nearly as bad as traitors, so all the rest of your post still applies.

[The Pilgrim]

That's why I don't condemn Tarquin for his action. Because while Nale made his own choices and has been his own man for years, a big , big part of the reason he's an untrustworthy snake is because Tarquin raised him that way, and indulged him when he should have been disciplining him. The mess, of having a serial murder for a son, is in large part of Tarquin's making. That means that Tarquin, and no one else, bears the responsibility to make sure his son stops killing.

Big flaws with your exposition:

1) Tarquin doesn't care AT ALL that his Son is a serial murderer. He did not kill him so that he would stop killing innocents. Tarquin in fact raised him to be an evil mass murderer like daddy. His differences with his son are 1) disagreement about style and 2) disagreement about who should be in charge. Period.

2) Tarquin did not kill his son to avenge Malack, or to do Justice to his former Evil Vampire Lord buddy, either. Tarquin already made clear that he did not give a dime about any of this when he offered Nale to take Malack's position within his own team.

Likewise, Tarquin did not need to kill Nale to keep face before his Team, because he made very clear (first with Malack, then with Laurin, then by telling us explicitly) that he can hold the leash on his pals and control all the strings there.

And, most importantly:


That doesn't mean Tarquin has to like it.

If anything, this should be the worst moment of his life.

3) And yet his reaction is... emotionless face. Tarquin did not feel any emotional pain whatsoever for killing his son. As shown in the relevant panels where he keeps an inexpresive face both at the moment of stabbing his son and then watching him lie dead in the sand. I can bet you that 914 will not show us a weeping Tarquin, neither one emotionally conflicted in the least way with what he has just done.

...

But, really, what really puzzles me about you all Tarquin fans, is the fact that you somehow pretend that Tarquin was morally bound to kill Nale. Taking into account that Tarquin is a far worse monster than Nale is (we can agree that he is a far more efficient monster, at least), then if Tarquin really did it for moral reasons whatsoever, his next action would be to commit suicide. But we all know that this is not gonna happen.

[Warren Dew]

Big flaws with your exposition:

1) Tarquin doesn't care AT ALL that his Son is a serial murderer. He did not kill him so that he would stop killing innocents. Tarquin in fact raised him to be an evil mass murderer like daddy. His differences with his son are 1) disagreement about style and 2) disagreement about who should be in charge. Period.

2) Tarquin did not kill his son to avenge Malack, or to do Justice to his former Evil Vampire Lord buddy, either. Tarquin already made clear that he did not give a dime about any of this when he offered Nale to take Malack's position within his own team. Tarquin did not needed to kill Nale to keep face before his Team, because he made very clear (first with Malack, then with Laurin, then by telling us explicitly) that he can hold the leash on his pals and control all the strings there.
I don't think either Pendell or anyone else is arguing that Tarquin is killing Nale because Nale is evil aligned; that would make no sense since Tarquin is also evil aligned.

Rather, I think Pendell is arguing that Tarquin killed him because he broke the laws of Tarquin's empire, and Tarquin is lawful aligned. Pendell's personal examples look somewhat different since he doesn't live in a lawful evil regime, but from a law/chaos standpoint, they are still apropos.


3) And yet his reaction is... emotionless face. Tarquin did not feel any emotional pain whatsoever for killing his son. As shown in the relevant panels where he keeps an inexpresive face both at the moment of stabbing his son and then watching him lie dead in the sand.
False. The relevant panels are, in the current comic, page 2 panel 8, where Tarquin shows sadness at what he has to do, and page 2 panel 11, where he shows anger about it.


But, really, what really puzzles me about you all Tarquin fans, is the fact that you somehow pretend that Tarquin was morally bound to kill Nale. Taking into account that Tarquin is a far worse monster than Nale is (we can agree that he is a far more efficient monster, at least), then if Tarquin really did it for moral reasons whatsoever, his next action would be to commit suicide. But we all know that this is not gonna happen.
Perhaps you're confusing arguments about the law/chaos axis, or simply about preservation of one's self and one's works, as arguments about the good/evil axis. They aren't.

[F.Harr]

Big flaws with your exposition:

1) Tarquin doesn't care AT ALL that his Son is a serial murderer. He did not kill him so that he would stop killing innocents. Tarquin in fact raised him to be an evil mass murderer like daddy. His differences with his son are 1) disagreement about style and 2) disagreement about who should be in charge. Period.

2) Tarquin did not kill his son to avenge Malack, or to do Justice to his former Evil Vampire Lord buddy, either. Tarquin already made clear that he did not give a dime about any of this when he offered Nale to take Malack's position within his own team.

Likewise, Tarquin did not need to kill Nale to keep face before his Team, because he made very clear (first with Malack, then with Laurin, then by telling us explicitly) that he can hold the leash on his pals and control all the strings there.

And, most importantly:



3) And yet his reaction is... emotionless face. Tarquin did not feel any emotional pain whatsoever for killing his son. As shown in the relevant panels where he keeps an inexpresive face both at the moment of stabbing his son and then watching him lie dead in the sand. I can bet you that 914 will not show us a weeping Tarquin, neither one emotionally conflicted in the least way with what he has just done.

...

But, really, what really puzzles me about you all Tarquin fans, is the fact that you somehow pretend that Tarquin was morally bound to kill Nale. Taking into account that Tarquin is a far worse monster than Nale is (we can agree that he is a far more efficient monster, at least), then if Tarquin really did it for moral reasons whatsoever, his next action would be to commit suicide. But we all know that this is not gonna happen.

Because I can see a Tarquin who loved his son doesn't mean I'm a fan. That I can see that killing Nale might be the right thing to do, doesn't make it the moral thing to do. Tarquin either ignored, encurraged or wasn't even aware whatever it was that wound up scarring his son emotionally. And just because Nale had it coming doesn't mean it was justice what happened. Justice requires process, not the leader's instant decision.

We're not fans of Tarquin, we see a person who's more than an evil-manipulative bastard. Although, he IS that, too.

And yes, no one is arguing that Tarquin killed Nale to protect anyone. It was strictly revenge. That dosesn't make him not a loving father. Just not a merciful one.

[Scow2]

Justice requires process, not the leader's instant decision
And the process was carried out by Nale himself. He was tried, judged, and executed.

And, the only reason "Justice is a process" that requires tedious and lengthy trials is because the modern legal system assumes witnesses aren't trustworthy, and will not invest a witness with the power of Judge and Executioner. Watching the crime itself unfold, or honest Self-incrimination, is a good enough replacement for a jury if a Judge is present.

You don't need a trial to have justice in a system that lacks Corruption. Tarquin is evil, but the only 'corruption' was his steadfast defense of Nale.

That dosesn't make him not a loving father. Just not a merciful one.He was merciful, though. But he wasn't an infinitely merciful father. Nale outright rejected his father's mercy - and Tarquin granted that retraction.

[F.Harr]

And, the only reason "Justice is a process" that requires tedious and lengthy trials is because the modern legal system assumes witnesses aren't trustworthy, and will not invest a witness with the power of Judge and Executioner.

They're not.

"You don't need a trial to have justice in a system that lacks Corruption. Tarquin is evil, but the only 'corruption' was his steadfast defense of Nale.[/QUOTE]

Not true. It's not corruption that different people in a disipute have different versions of what happened and what it means legally. It's human nature. Sapient nature, rather.

[Scow2]

They're not.


"You don't need a trial to have justice in a system that lacks Corruption. Tarquin is evil, but the only 'corruption' was his steadfast defense of Nale.

Not true. It's not corruption that different people in a disipute have different versions of what happened and what it means legally. It's human nature. Sapient nature, rather.Except in this case, Nale, Tarquin, and Laurin all confirmed they all had the same view of what happened: Nale betrayed and killed Malack for his own pleasure, and did not want his father's mercy, protection, or any other 'handouts'.

And a witness is only untrustworthy if:
1.) They have reason to lie (See: Kubota's plan to not just be found innocent, but also seen as a hero during his assassination way back when, and most cases of "I killed him because he was a menace")
Or
2.) they have an incomplete picture of what happened. (Re: Miko executing Shojo)

[F.Harr]

Except in this case, Nale, Tarquin, and Laurin all confirmed they all had the same view of what happened: Nale betrayed and killed Malack for his own pleasure, and did not want his father's mercy, protection, or any other 'handouts'.

It's still personal between Nale and Tarquin. The invovement of sosity in justice is justified, as I understand it, is because crimes and wrongs effect not just the partisipents but society as a whole.

[Scow2]

It's still personal between Nale and Tarquin. The invovement of sosity in justice is justified, as I understand it, is because crimes and wrongs effect not just the partisipents but society as a whole.
Tarquin was also the final authority of Society, and invested with the powers of Judge, Jury, and Executioner (A power Paladins and Archons tend to have in Lawful Good societies - their code and the ramifications against their soul keep them pure and just in their judgements). And as I editted in: A witness is only untrustworthy if it has reason to lie or has an incomplete picture.

[The Pilgrim]

We're not fans of Tarquin, we see a person who's more than an evil-manipulative bastard. Although, he IS that, too.

Tarquin is nothing more than an evil manipulative bastard. Nothing we have seen in the comic gives any hint that Tarquin is anything more than that.

Nothing.

Just because he has charisma and style doesn't means there is more deep in his personality. Tarquin is rather hollow inside.

[Anansiil]

2) Tarquin did not kill his son to avenge Malack, or to do Justice to his former Evil Vampire Lord buddy, either. Tarquin already made clear that he did not give a dime about any of this when he offered Nale to take Malack's position within his own team.

Likewise, Tarquin did not need to kill Nale to keep face before his Team, because he made very clear (first with Malack, then with Laurin, then by telling us explicitly) that he can hold the leash on his pals and control all the strings there.
If you look back at 913, you see that he address all of these explicitly. He was willing to bend the rules to place Nale in a comfortable position within his group. Tarquin believed that he could work things out and make everyone, relatively, happy. Because Tarquin is evil, you are writing off his affection.... sure... affection for this team as 'holding a leash'. Being manipulative and willing to kill does prevent someone from wanting to keep peace with his friends. They are friends and they can be used as tools. To a Very moral person, friends could never be seen as tools; to a pragmatist, friends are friends and tools are tools; a person could be one, both or neither.



3) And yet his reaction is... emotionless face. Tarquin did not feel any emotional pain whatsoever for killing his son. As shown in the relevant panels where he keeps an inexpresive face both at the moment of stabbing his son and then watching him lie dead in the sand. I can bet you that 914 will not show us a weeping Tarquin, neither one emotionally conflicted in the least way with what he has just done.


Why is it necessary to weep to be sad? Weeping would be a very stereotyped exposition of sadness.


False. The relevant panels are, in the current comic, page 2 panel 8, where Tarquin shows sadness at what he has to do, and page 2 panel 11, where he shows anger about it.
These were poignant examples of how Tarquin felt. Consider how much Tarquin risked by trying to keep his son alive; that is also proof how much he cared. Showing that he cares doesn't somehow absolve him of being evil and manipulative, but again, I don't believe evil is the absence of any positive traits. If that is the definition of evil, than it is further proof to me that D&D is not a game that I would like to play... Good and evil can be distracting. Back to parenting, this was not easy for Tarquin to do Only in the sense that it was not what he wanted to do. All options, in Tarquin's mind, were exhausted. A kinder gentler person could have banished Nale, conditioned upon pain of death, but Tarquin is not particularly kind or gentle.



But, really, what really puzzles me about you all Tarquin fans, is the fact that you somehow pretend that Tarquin was morally bound to kill Nale. Taking into account that Tarquin is a far worse monster than Nale is (we can agree that he is a far more efficient monster, at least), then if Tarquin really did it for moral reasons whatsoever, his next action would be to commit suicide. But we all know that this is not gonna happen.

Analyzing Tarquin's motives does not imply that one necessarily supports Tarquin's actions or motives. The Giant happens to write characters that are so compelling that people feel compelled to contemplate character decisions.
I never played D&D because one issue that always bothered me was the polarized morality; "an evil character is evil and cannot have redeeming qualities,... because that character is evil." The Giant has characters that can reflect real life situations, complete with their complexity. Good vs Evil can sometimes bore me, but Grey vs Grey isn't necessarily better; ignoring Good vs Evil, one can look at these interactions and be reminded of real life. pg 1 Panel 9 shows that Tarquin has priorities, Conquest, Nale, Malack.





Perhaps you're confusing arguments about the law/chaos axis, or simply about preservation of one's self and one's works, as arguments about the good/evil axis. They aren't.
I have to heartily agree. :)

[pendell]

Rather, I think Pendell is arguing that Tarquin killed him because he broke the laws of Tarquin's empire, and Tarquin is lawful aligned. Pendell's personal examples look somewhat different since he doesn't live in a lawful evil regime, but from a law/chaos standpoint, they are still apropos.


Correct. Also because Tarquin is the evil head of an evil adventuring party, and they don't play by queensbury rules.

Kill one of their number, and die horribly.

Tarquin intervened to save his son from what the party would have demanded from anyone else. Nale refused his help and demanded to be treated like anyone else. So Tarquin withdrew his protection, and Nale died.

Why did Tarquin do it himself rather than simply nodding to Shatterstone and say "I can't do anything more with him. It's over to you."

Four reasons I can think of:

1) Control freak. Tarquin won't allow anyone else to do for him what he can do for himself.

2) Taking responsibility. Nale wouldn't even be alive now, and would never have been in a responsibility to destroy Malack, if Tarquin had not saved him repeatedly. Tarquin made the mess, it's up to him to clean it up.

3) Kindness. Shatterstone might have used implosion or any of the other nasty powers to make Nale's death horrifying. Tarquin can't bear to see that done to his own flesh and blood, because it's also cruelty to him as well.

4) Pragmatism. Nale still has dimension door prepared, doesn't he? If you don't one-round him without warning, he's going to be gone, and I wouldn't trust the mooks to catch him. Then he teams up again with Sabine in a day etc. etc. --- chasing him down and killing him is going to cost time, money, energy, and possibly more lives before he's finally down.

So don't give him a chance to run, or to fight, or do anything else stupid. Just strike him down now without warning and end the whole series of unfortunate events before it gets started.

Which ,realistically, Tarquin should have done a LONG time ago. If he had, Malack would still be around. ANd 400+ people in Cliffport, though Tarquin doesn't care about that. Malack , though, he cares very much about.

Tarquin is an evil manipulative person and a force for evil in the world. Possibly worse than Xykon because Tarquin has a brain and an epic adventuring party behind him. But putting down an unrepentent murderer who has just killed one of his party members isn't even close to the top of his list of crimes. In fact, I don't think it's a crime at all, in this universe and this culture. Burning slaves alive, Not THAT is pure evil. But not giving a murderer what was due him many times over, and with far less suffering than the murderer inflicted on his victims. That's not even justice. True justice -- giving the person in like measure what they gave to others -- would require burning Nale alive, as Malack burned alive. Tarquin's one-round kill of Nale was not justice, but mercy. And pragmatic, don't forget, since we all know what happens when you try to execute someone in the grand manner in these stories.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Anansiil]

Hello, parent here. Not a parent for very long at all, and with very little experience, but parent nonethelesss.


*All other things being equal*, your child is your greatest treasure and your prized possession. In a very real sense, your life ends the day your child is born, or perhaps the day you got married. Because from that moment henceforth it's no longer all about you -- a major focus of your life and attention is raising your child, saving up for college, teaching them, preparing them, making them functional human beings. Parents no longer live for themselves, but for their children. Way I see it, a father has a duty to raise up sons and daughters who are responsible, independent, compassionate and brave. The children are our hopes and dreams, because anything of us in mortal terms that carries on down the ages will be carried by them, when they take the torch from our hands.

And because of that, it SHOULD be a matter of greatest woe and sadness to cause pain or inflict harm on our children, and especially not to *kill* them. Because in killing them, we kill ourselves, our hopes and dreams for the future they carry.

And yet.

The problem is it's a common temptation in parenting, especially when there's only one, to give into what I call "special snowflake" syndrome. To have so much affection and compassion for your child that you can't bear to cause them discomfort when they *need* to have it done. To look the other way when they cheat on tests , or bully other kids in school, or aren't putting in the effort they should.

I appeal to the teachers here: Who are the kids you have the most trouble with? I'm betting it's either the ones who don't have functional parents at home, or parents who, rather than doing anything when you call them to tell them Jimmy is disrupting class, show up en masse to defend him without consideration for anything else. Jimmy can do no wrong, and the result is that he gets worse and worse because he know he'll be excused and protected regardless of what he does.

When you're a parent, the odds are good that functionally you're going to have be meaner to them than anyone else they know. Who else is going to tell them they're going wrong and need to shape up? The TV? I appeal to the teachers again -- almost nothing a teacher or a sunday school teacher or a pastor or a coach or a sergeant can do with a kid means anything if those lessons aren't being reinforced and acted on at home.


And the flip side of that is ... just as you're responsible for their training and discipline, so you're responsible for cleaning up their messes. Little Sarah gets in the car while you're not looking and backs over the neighbor's mailbox? Guess whose wallet the repair is coming out of? That's right. Yours. Little Johnny beats the living tar out of a little girl three years younger than he, and her angry father (who happens to be an airborne ranger) shows up at the door, guess who gets to go out to meet him at the door? That's right. You do.

That last situation is particularly appropriate. You don't want this stranger to give Johnny what's coming to him. So you step between him and Johnny. You apologize profusely. You pay the medical bills. But this is the most important thing ... you have to promise the other Dad that there will NEVER EVER be a recurrence. And then, when he's gone, you have to take Johnny aside and make sure that is a true statement.

You can't let an outsider give Johnny what's coming to him, so you've got to do it yourself.

That's especially true because, for events to reach the stage where Johnny thinks its right to beat up little girls, he got there by following YOUR example. His cowardly bullying is a direct reflection of what YOU put in him, either by your own example or by not keeping a careful enough watch to make sure he wasn't getting the wrong kinds of messages from other people.

So if Johnny steps far enough out of line that he's not just going through the normal growing pains but is becoming an active menace to other people, it's YOUR job, first and foremost , to rein him in. YOU made this mess, YOU need to clean it up.

Which means that, if despite your best efforts Johnny gets worse and YOU find out he's dealing drugs from his bedroom, it's YOUR hand that should be the first one to pick up the phone and call 911. You shouldn't wait to find out until the police bust in and drag him away, because they'll also have pointed questions for you as to what you were doing while all this was going on.

I saw something like this happen in real life. Single mom. Many children. Oldest boy took dad's leaving very badly (Dad ran off with another woman) and started behaving badly. Behaving badly to the point of seriously hurting his younger siblings physically.

Mom did the only thing she could do, because the boy had gone completely beyond her control -- she called the police, and had her own son taken to jail.

Because parents are responsible for their children. And if our children are an active menace to society, we bear the responsibility to end that menace. A big part of WHY they are a menace is because we raised them that way, after all. Just as we bear a share in making the mess, so we also must bear a share in cleaning it up.

That's why I don't condemn Tarquin for his action. Because while Nale made his own choices and has been his own man for years, a big , big part of the reason he's an untrustworthy snake is because Tarquin raised him that way, and indulged him when he should have been disciplining him.
......
That's the essence of the lawful alignment. You can bend the rules, and you can twist the rules, and you can find alternative interpretations of the rules (Rule 401C: Any punishment can be deferred if the subject is too useful to kill), but you can't *break* the rules.

Tarquin had a responsibility to raise his son. Part of that responsibility is cleaning up after his son's messes , which means punishing Nale himself since he won't let anyone else do it. And when it became obvious that Nale was not only unsalvageable but was willing to violently reject any provision within the rules to keep him alive, it was left to Tarquin to put the final crowning touch on his utter failure as a father -- to kill the son he'd raised from birth as his own. To fulfill his last, final, and saddest duty as a parent -- to give him the final punishment for his crimes.

...

That doesn't mean Tarquin has to like it.

If anything, this should be the worst moment of his life. He's not only lost his nearest and dearest , he's also testified to his own complete failure as a father and as a man. Nale's failure is HIS failure. But that doesn't mean he can simply excuse Nale or fob the job off on someone else. He's done that for too many years already.

It's time to end this. Realistically, in the culture and context as shown in the EOB, there is no other way it COULD end for Tarquin to still be Tarquin.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

:smile: ooh, this is like philosophical breakfast in bed!

1. I would like to thank you for the length of this post.
2. I would like to thank you for the depth of this post.
3. Also, you explain things in an excellent manner!

On a side note, I can't help but appreciate that you managed to explain things in a way that I could agree with :)

----I must admit that I felt a bit awkward when I saw Tarquin finish his son, but not for the normal reasons; I didn't see the action as a necessity, but it was entirely reasonable so it had me wondering about how I would react in such a situation.

Having to deal with the mess of one's child is an interesting concept. I'm usually disconcerted by the idea of the role of feelings in dealing with a 'rotten kid'. You explained things with the same kind of logic that I operate on. Compared to others, I thought I might be too 'cool hearted' to effectively deal with a wayward child.

A question that I would like to ask you, Brian P., is how you view the other kind of parent that would willingly let their child destroy theirself (the parent) and others in the hope that either the child, one day, might figure things out and make you proud in spite of their current trajectory, or the contentedness that a parent might feel knowing that their child is still out there in the world, whether or not that child would 'see the light'.

Objectively, the latter parent is not necessarily worst or better than the parenting style that we both think of. The child will live on; isn't that a parents job? With our style/mentality, the child must not be a detriment to society, even at the expense of our own, particular, child.

(I only cut a few parts to make the quote smaller, leaving some of my favorite parts, which as pretty much all of :smallsmile:)
(a side note:
I wonder how well Tarquin could manage the EOB (took me along while to catch that acronym) with his friends or underlings able to see his hypocrisy? Tarquin bends but does not break rules, thus he is stable and able to maintain rule. As an incredibly powerful dictator, he could hold onto his empire for quite a while before displeased people would overthrow him. I wonder how much of his motivation was due to his own nature as a lawful person and how much was due to him thinking of how his allies might react. :smallsmile:)

[pendell]

ooh, this is like philosophical breakfast in bed!

1. I would like to thank you for the length of this post.
2. I would like to thank you for the depth of this post.
3. Also, you explain things in an excellent manner!

You're welcome!



A question that I would like to ask you, Brian P., is how you view the other kind of parent that would willingly let their child destroy theirself (the parent) and others in the hope that either the child, one day, might figure things out and make you proud in spite of their current trajectory, or the contentedness that a parent might feel knowing that their child is still out there in the world, whether or not that child would 'see the light'.

Objectively, the latter parent is not necessarily worst or better than the parenting style that we both think of. The child will live on; isn't that a parents job? With our style/mentality, the child must not be a detriment to society, even at the expense of our own, particular, child.


Y'know what? Out of respect for our readers I'm going to put my wall of text response in a spoiler box.


Well, first two caveats:

1) We're talking about grown kids right? Cause we totally have to look after the little 'uns all the time, especially when they're so small they literally don't know their left from their right.
2) When I say this, I'm speaking abstractedly. I wouldn't presume to judge any other specific parent, because every child is different and so is the situation. Until I've had to raise the kid myself I have very little right to criticize in detail. So these are strictly general principles. In my opinion. Worth every dime you paid for them :).
Now, the overall general principle in answer to your question is: To the extent we are responsible for our children, to that extent we should control their behavior for them .
That means different things in different cultures.

In the culture *I* was raised in, children have no duty of obedience to their parents once they come of age. Since they have no responsibility to obey, we likewise have no responsibility to command or to make them do what we think is best for them.

If they're still dependent on us for stuff like, say, room and board or college money or whatever, then to that extent we have an "in" by threatening to withhold these things. But any sensible (IMO) parent is very cautious about doing this, because there's always the possibility the child will call our bluff, even if it means living on the street.

I saw a case like that. I knew a homeless guy in Rosslyn. He'd lived with his parents for years and years, until they finally told him to "shape up or ship out". He called their bluff, and last I saw had been living homeless on the streets for five years. You may grieve if you're a parent, but what can you do? If you get a gang of bully boys together and drag him back home, odds are good you'll go to prison.

So unless they are dependent on us in some way -- and again, even there we need to be cautious about threats -- there's not much we can do. We can offer counsel -- if they want it. We can offer help -- if they need it -- but even then I would be very careful about offering either unless it was blindingly obvious it was necessary, or if it was asked for.

The reason for this is people tend to think they know a lot more about someone else's business than they really do. Take this strip: Rich Burlew gets advice on a literal daily basis from people on this forum (including myself) who THINK they know something about how to draw a comic strip. I think it fair to say that 80-95% of this advice is redundant, useless, or harmful, which is why Rich is not at all thankful for it.

This seems to be worse with kids. It's sometimes very hard for parents to forget that kids are adults now and not the little squirmies crawling around sticking forks in outlets. So out of respect for them, it's best to err on the side of "mind your own business" unless the advice is either asked for or is really, really, obviously necessary.

Beyond that -- if they don't want our advice or counsel, we can't make them do what's right for themselves. So we have to sit back and watch them destroy themselves, until they're either so desperate they finally call for help or their activity finally gets bad enough to warrant action by the civil authorities.

It's different in a clan-based society.

In a clan, children have the duty of obedience to their parents for their entire lives, and the parents likewise have to consciously watch over and control them just as when they were teenagers. This is because the clan is a nation unto itself -- no outsider has any right to touch a member of the clan, so if something goes wrong the clan has to deal with it internally. Which means, if someone does something worthy of the death penalty, it's dad who has to exact it.

Serenity in the firefly series is one such clan, with Mal as head of the clan. Once you sign on as a member of Mal's crew, you have absolute immunity from any law outside the ship. And the downside of that is law INSIDE the ship is absolute. Mal is judge, jury and executioner for every crewmember aboard that ship. Which is why he may dump you out the airlock but he will NEVER, NEVER , NEVER turn you over to the Alliance. The clan looks after its own -- no matter what.

As Serenity is, so Tarquin's adventuring group is. This group of six people (I believe) obeys no outside law but the laws within the group are inviolable. You can do what you like with outsiders but you MUST respect your fellow clan members. That's why Tarquin doesn't care at all how many outsiders Nale kills but is absolutely concerned when he murders Malack, a clan member in good standing. Nale is a part of his "clan" by virtue of being his flesh and blood, and has enjoyed the benefit of being part of the clan because Tarquin has protected and kept him alive. Because Tarquin has protected Nale from outsiders, it therefore follows that it's Tarquins job to exact the punishment he will permit no other to give.

In this society, a parent has greater responsibility and authority over grown children and thus in such a society it is the parent's job to punish said child if it comes to it, even with death. It's because no outsider has the right to do the job without threatening the very basis of society itself.

So it's a tradeoff, different in different cultures. In Mal's world, you are absolutely free and independent of any law save the ship's, and the downside of that is Mal has both the duty and the privilege of punishing you however he sees fit. In OUR world, we don't give parents anywhere near that level of power. So your parents can't lock you in prison or confine you to your house or kill you. And the downside is, total strangers can come to your house and do all those things to you, and your parents can't protect you from that.

However, there is one other universal principle that applies in both situations, and that is: Grown children should have as much independence and responsibility as they can handle. It's in the very word. "Child" is a synonym for "dependent", so to the extent a child remains dependent on their parents, to that extent they have not achieved full adulthood. Besides, it's pragmatically better that way. Doing things for other people that they can do for themselves diminishes them and takes your own time and energy as well. Multiply those cares by enough people and you're asking to fall over from stress and overwork.



So does that answer your question? I'm not sure any given parenting style is "right" or "wrong". It's heavily dependent on the parents, the kids, and the situation they are in. But the two general guiding principles are 1) Every child should have as much independence as they can manage. 2) To the extent a parent retains responsibility for a child's actions, to that extent a parent must exert control over the child if necessary.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[B. Dandelion]

It seems odd to me to state that Tarquin killing Nale is Tarquin taking responsibility for having made Nale what he is. To me it seems like to say that Tarquin made Nale what he is sorta makes Nale a victim... and then the correct, responsible parent's action is to kill the child whose villainy is ultimately the parent's own fault? Seems to me more like Nale paid the ultimate price for Tarquin being a narcissistic self-obsessed dad, while Tarquin's "sacrifice" is now "oh well, guess I'll have to rely on the other kid to ensure my legacy. Good thing I had a spare!" That's what "responsibility" looks like?

[The Pilgrim]

Mmmh... looks like I have a lot of replies pending. Ok, one by one.

pendell

The main problem about your judgement of Tarquin's actions on the Law/Chaos axis, is that you seem to have confused "Lawful" with "adherence to the Law".

I think it was the Giant, or someone else, who once said that it would have been clearer that, instead of "Law vs Chaos", the paradigm would have been named "Order vs Chaos". That's one of the many flaws of the Alignment System. Together with assuming that Law is "more good" than Chaos, or that being Lawful Evil means having any sort of honor. (And let's not forget the issue with forcing inborn alignment on entire sentient species).

In D&D, Lawful means adherence to Order, but not necessary to written laws. You can have your own code of conduct, or just an organized take on your modus operandi.

If we approach Tarquin, we can easly see that he has little respect for laws, not even his own. His Empire has a corrupt legal system that Tarquin does not hesitate to corrupt even more in order to frame two innocents with a crime they had not commited just because one of them behaved too upity on him. He has no problem to release Roy without any kind of legal justification (just telling the people that he died while fighting Thog) when he could have easly made things legal by issuing an official amnesty.

For Tarquin, Laws are an efficient method to force his thumb on the population. But nothing else. Tarquin has no sense of Justice. His plan to build a centralized unified Empire is not fueled by any greater ideal, neither to make the life of the people better (heavens, he is ok with letting Malack transform the whole thing into a meat factory in which the populance would be sacrified in droves of thousands). He just wants to do it to live like a God.

Tarquin is Lawful Evil, but that doesn't means he has any sort of "honor", sense of Justice, or respect for Laws. It means that he likes to keep face and pretend he has honor and respect for legality, but nothing else. Certainly the "villiain with honor" is one take on the LE alignment, but it's not the only one, and definitely it's not Tarquin's (neither was Kubota's, by the way).

Now, you have talked also about a sense of loyalty in Tarquin. Again, that's bull****. 913 shows Tarquin having no problem with letting Nale take Malacks position. Nale killed three of Malack's children, yet Tarquin describes Malack's wishes of revenge as "ridiculous feud" and "petty revenge".

Tarquin's system of values, as shown in the comic, seems to function the following way:

Law Number One: The World revolves around ME.
Law Number Two: If any two items conflict with each other, I'll favor the one closer to ME.

Malack is MY long term buddy, so if some random schmuck conflicts with him, I'll favor Malack because he is closer to ME.

Nale is MY own blood, so if Malack conflicts with him, then hard luck Malack, enjoy your time under the Sun.

Finally, I am closer to ME than Nale, so if Nale defies MY aouthority? meet my pointy dagger, "son".

And that's basically it. As a fellow parent, I find your essay about spoiling your children very interesting. But non-applicable to Tarquin on the grounds that we don't know how Tarquin has raised Nale.

If Tarquin had spoiled Nale, he would have become some sort of corrupt prince, rather than an angry rebel with a damaged ego obsessed with surpassing his father.

The way Nale and his relationship with Tarquin has been presented in-comic, it looks like Tarquin has raised Nale by constantly neglecting and humiliating him and scrubbing through his face how inferior an utterly useless he is.

Nale is closer to an abused children than to a spoiled one.


Warren Dew

Page 2 Panel 8 shows Tarquin feeling midly frustrated because one of his plans has failed. Page 2 Panel 11 shows Tarquin midly annoyed while scrubbing his superiority over Nale and justifying himself because "it's all your fault".

Neither shows Tarquin particulary conflicted for having to slay his son.

But we shall see in the next comics...


Anansiil

Disowning a child, I can understand it. Killing him in cold blood when he is unharmed before you? only if you are a psycho. Tarquin may be the law around there but he doesn't gives a dime for laws and justice.

An evil character can have redeeming qualities. But that's not Tarquin's case. Neither is Xykon's. Both are plain evil, and it's no coincidence that this comic's moral compass on pure Good - Elan - put both on the same league (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html).

[Warren Dew]

In the culture *I* was raised in, children have no duty of obedience to their parents once they come of age. Since they have no responsibility to obey, we likewise have no responsibility to command or to make them do what we think is best for them.

If they're still dependent on us for stuff like, say, room and board or college money or whatever, then to that extent we have an "in" by threatening to withhold these things. But any sensible (IMO) parent is very cautious about doing this, because there's always the possibility the child will call our bluff, even if it means living on the street.
I don't know about your culture in particular, but parents can also get a fair amount of control through incentives rather than punishments or threats. For example, lots of parents are willing to help cover the cost of college, but not willing to give the kids the same amount of money for, say, gambling on the stock market. One could argue that Tarquin's protection of Nale is similar to this.


But the two general guiding principles are 1) Every child should have as much independence as they can manage....
While I personally adhere to that, I don't think the principle is all that general. There are plenty of cultures where the family is an autocratic organization, and younger generations are expected to work for the good of the family, obeying orders from the family head for life or until they become family head themselves.


It seems odd to me to state that Tarquin killing Nale is Tarquin taking responsibility for having made Nale what he is. To me it seems like to say that Tarquin made Nale what he is sorta makes Nale a victim...
Both can be true at the same time.


and then the correct, responsible parent's action is to kill the child whose villainy is ultimately the parent's own fault? Seems to me more like Nale paid the ultimate price for Tarquin being a narcissistic self-obsessed dad, while Tarquin's "sacrifice" is now "oh well, guess I'll have to rely on the other kid to ensure my legacy. Good thing I had a spare!" That's what "responsibility" looks like?
Responsibility is more about putting things straight than about making sacrifices. What Tarquin does is the closest Tarquin can come to undoing the problems that Nale's poor upbringing brought upon Tarquin's group and empire.

[The Pilgrim]

Sooo, 914 is out!

So much for Tarquin's supposed "sense of justice" that forced him to make the "hardest decision of his life".

Clearing plot elements who are stealing screentime from HIM.

Heh.

[pendell]

If Tarquin had spoiled Nale, he would have become some sort of corrupt prince, rather than an angry rebel with a damaged ego obsessed with surpassing his father.

The way Nale and his relationship with Tarquin has been presented in-comic, it looks like Tarquin has raised Nale by constantly neglecting and humiliating him and scrubbing through his face how inferior an utterly useless he is.

Nale is closer to an abused children than to a spoiled one.


Really? I've dealt with physical abuse. I double-checked (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/emotional_psychological_trauma.htm) to make sure I'm not talking through my hat on this, but Nale doesn't *ping* on my internal radar as an abused child.

Abuse causes trauma. Trauma causes people to withdraw from themselves, from others, from the world. They may hurt those underneath them -- it's what they saw modeled after all -- but they're very reluctant to show anything but fawning servility to those above them. Passive resistance when authority isn't looking, but outright defiance? Almost never.

To put it bluntly, abused children don't typically grow up to be the strong, self-confident leaders of adventuring parties. If anything , abuse *shatters* self-image and self-confidence, making the person an angry and bitter loner. They're not leader types.

Nale doesn't have any obvious problems in the self-image and self-confidence department, and what he said with his body -- boasting to his father's face about how he killed Malack, how he SUFFERED, smiling the whole time, accusing his father of having not testicles --- abused children DON'T DO THAT. No abused child (IME) talks back to a father figure because they know a fist to the face will be the immediate response.

No, Nale reacts like someone who believe that he can say anything, do anything in front of his father and get away with it. A dagger in the chest was totally NOT what he was expecting.

What WAS he expecting? I think he was expecting his father to be weak and cover for him, protect him again, because his father didn't have it in him to kill him.

How should he form such an expectation in the first place? My guess is, because that's the pattern he'd seen for his entire life with his father, a pattern of constant indulgence and either no or minimal discipline when it was called for.

That's not an abused child. That's a spoiled child. IMO.



I don't know about your culture in particular, but parents can also get a fair amount of control through incentives rather than punishments or threats.


Oh, I agree. The day my parents discovered incentive parenting instead of punishment was as day is to night. I flourished much better with incentives than with punishment, and I think Nietzche was right -- if the only reward you have to offer is a failure to punish, you're doing something wrong.

Thing is, the conversation is what happens when adult offspring go off the rails catastrophically. At that point, incentives are usually no longer an option for heading people off from imminent destruction. You've often got to get their attention in a way they cannot ignore. Incentives can be ignored, punishment can't.



There are plenty of cultures where the family is an autocratic organization, and younger generations are expected to work for the good of the family, obeying orders from the family head for life or until they become family head themselves.


Oh yeah, but even in an autocratic organization you still want your subordinates to have maximum independence. That's the miracle of delegation of authority (http://www.managementstudyguide.com/delegation_of_authority.htm). In any concern, be it criminal, business, government, or family, there's more work involved in managing it than any human being can reasonably do. So any intelligent figure delegates as much authority and jobs as ze can to subordinates in order to leave hir plate clear to handle those things that truly require their attention. The CEO shouldn't have to worry about whether the IT department is in compliance with spec, for example. Ze should find a competent IT person, give him/hir a budget and directions, then get the heck out of his/her way.

The alternative -- micro-managing-- essentially means you have to do all the subordinates thinking for them, and the more of their work you're doing, the less time and energy you have to do the things CEOs are paid the big bucks for.

So even in an autocracy you want your subordinates to be as -- what's the buzzword -- empowered (http://asq.org/learn-about-quality/employee-involvement/overview/overview.html) as possible. Not all subordinates can handle this, but ideally you want a subordinate who is so motivated that they can operate without supervision, doing what needs doing even in the absence of detailed orders and guidance.

And if you're a paterfamilias in a clan-based society, you absolutely want that for your grown children, because soon enough your eldest is going to be head of house in your place, and this will be good training for them.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

Nale doesn't have any obvious problems in the self-image and self-confidence department

TIIIIIILT!!!!!

Nale has the sort of damaged ego that would force him to try to surpass his father at all costs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12240501#post12240501)

Of course Nale had a problem in the self-image and self-esteem department. Nale was not a strong self-confident party leader.

And I said he was closer to abused than to spoiled. And abused emotionally, not physically.

[Warren Dew]

So much for Tarquin's supposed "sense of justice" that forced him to make the "hardest decision of his life".
And so much for the idea that killing Nale had anything to do with Tarquin's being evil or cold, eh? Tarquin was actually just protecting Elan's narrative arc!

Oh wait, this comic doesn't actually prove anything about any of those things.

[The Pilgrim]

And so much for the idea that killing Nale had anything to do with Tarquin's being evil or cold, eh? Tarquin was actually just protecting Tarquin's narrative arc with Elan!


Fixed for you.

[pendell]

TIIIIIILT!!!!!

Nale has the sort of damaged ego that would force him to try to surpass his father at all costs (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12240501#post12240501)

Of course Nale had a problem in the self-image and self-esteem department. Nale was not a strong self-confident party leader.

And I said he was closer to abused than to spoiled. And abused emotionally, not physically.

Okay, so what is your read on what Nale went through? 'Cause when I think 'abuse', I think physical abuse and verbal abuse. Being constantly told you're no one and nothing, you're horrible, flogging or worse for the smallest infraction, watching your friends killed in front of you for your mistakes, heart leaps in your chest when father gets home and you only pray you can make it through without upsetting or drawing his attention in any way.

That's pretty obviously not where Nale is coming from. He may have a damaged ego, but if so, what would cause it? Certainly not what I described. Serious question. What, in your opinion, is the nature of the abuse Nale suffered to get the "damaged ego" Word of Giant says he has?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

Oh wait, this comic doesn't actually prove anything about any of those things.
I have to wonder what you would consider to prove something about Tarquin's motivations.

Anything other than "the author explicitly saying it"? Or would the character explicitly saying it* do? Or is the true answer "absolutely nothing"?

*Understand, lest I be accused of asking a trick question, that I consider giving a significant amount of weight to "it's what he said about his motivations" a mistake in most cases and a HUGE mistake with someone who lies as constantly as Tarquin does.

Okay, so what is your read on what Nale went through? 'Cause when I think 'abuse', I think physical abuse and verbal abuse. Being constantly told you're no one and nothing, you're horrible, flogging or worse for the smallest infraction, watching your friends killed in front of you for your mistakes, heart leaps in your chest when father gets home and you only pray you can make it through without upsetting or drawing his attention in any way.

That's pretty obviously not where Nale is coming from. He may have a damaged ego, but if so, what would cause it? Certainly not what I described. Serious question. What, in your opinion, is the nature of the abuse Nale suffered to get the "damaged ego" Word of Giant says he has?

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Actually, I'd say you're close, but with more subtlety. Nale didn't have to fear for his physical safety as long as Tarquin lived and as long as he played along with Tarquin. (I doubt he would have lived very long in Malack's inherited empire even if he had never gone out of his way to alienate Malack.) Instead of "you're nothing, you're horrible," there was patronizing, "I'm sure you worked very hard on this rather silly plan which we're, of course, not using. Next time, eh?" Nale alluded to Tarquin's "cruel tests" in the last strip, if you recall.

Although, I kind of doubt Nale didn't sense on any level that if his father ever really accepted he wanted more out of life than being Tarquin's pawn Tarquin would stab him in the chest, either. You can't hide that level of cold...at least not if you don't actually understand why anyone would think there's something wrong with it.

[pendell]

Actually, I'd say you're close, but with more subtlety. Nale didn't have to fear for his physical safety as long as Tarquin lived and as long as he played along with Tarquin. (I doubt he would have lived very long in Malack's inherited empire even if he had never gone out of his way to alienate Malack.) Instead of "you're nothing, you're horrible," there was patronizing, "I'm sure you worked very hard on this rather silly plan which we're, of course, not using. Next time, eh?" Nale alluded to Tarquin's "cruel tests" in the last strip, if you recall.


So ... always being patronized, always being in the shadow of his oh-so-clever father? Being treated like a small child even when you're a grown adult? Resulting in the desperate need to prove that no, in fact, you're NOT just like your old man, you're BETTER than he is in every way?

That ... fits quite well with Nale's established character, actually.

I remember visiting a church my parents recommended once. I was welcomed greatly and heartily and all the old people smiled at me as "Curt and Cheryl's son."

I never went back. Not that they were bad people, they were quite nice. It's just that -- at age 24 when this occurred -- I wanted to be known as Brian in his own right, not the son of Curt and Cheryl, though I'm not at all ashamed of that. It's just I wanted to be my own man.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

Okay, so what is your read on what Nale went through? 'Cause when I think 'abuse', I think physical abuse and verbal abuse. Being constantly told you're no one and nothing, you're horrible, flogging or worse for the smallest infraction, watching your friends killed in front of you for your mistakes, heart leaps in your chest when father gets home and you only pray you can make it through without upsetting or drawing his attention in any way.

That's pretty obviously not where Nale is coming from. He may have a damaged ego, but if so, what would cause it? Certainly not what I described. Serious question. What, in your opinion, is the nature of the abuse Nale suffered to get the "damaged ego" Word of Giant says he has?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, read again Tarquin's words on Nale in the last two comics:

- "You would have been killed long ago without my protection"
- "I did my best but he was nothing more than a recurring B-Villiain"
- "Elan has outgrown him"
- "He was cluttering the obvious narrative plot between me and Elan"
- "I can't think of anyone else that meet Nale and didn't entertain the idea of killing him"

If you come to think about it, what you just wrote seems to describe rather well Tarquin's treatment of Nale.

Respectifully

Me.

[Warren Dew]

I have to wonder what you would consider to prove something about Tarquin's motivations.
In comic evidence not reasonably explained in any other way is the closest we're likely to come to proof. For example, the sadness and resignation shown by Tarquin's facial expression in #913 p2 panel8 can't reasonably be explained other than by his feeling sadness and resignation, since there's no motivation for Tarquin to fake the emotion.

The comments about Nale's no longer being useful to the plot can reasonably, in fact more reasonably, be explained as fourth wall breaking jokes, and to some extent as authorial commentary on why Nale is being removed from the plot at this point, than as being the sole in character reason for Tarquin's killing Nale to the exclusion of all other reasons as suggested by The Pilgrim. The idea that any one reason is "the" sole reason to the exclusion of all others is highly suspect, anyway.

Of course, The Pilgrim is tilting at straw men when he introduces an argument against Tarquin's "sense of justice" playing a part in the decision, anyway. What was actually argued was that Tarquin's sense of responsibility played a part in the decision, which is a different thing - and which panel 7 of the current strip tends to support.

[The Pilgrim]

In comic evidence not reasonably explained in any other way is the closest we're likely to come to proof. For example, the sadness and resignation shown by Tarquin's facial expression in #913 p2 panel8 can't reasonably be explained other than by his feeling sadness and resignation, since there's no motivation for Tarquin to fake the emotion.

Panel 8 shows resignation, but does not show sadness. The fact that Tarquin has not shown any bit of sadness either before or after that panel supports the logical conclusion that we can rule out "sad" from Tarquin's list of emotions there.


Of course, The Pilgrim is tilting at straw men when he introduces an argument against Tarquin's "sense of justice" playing a part in the decision, anyway. What was actually argued was that Tarquin's sense of responsibility played a part in the decision, which is a different thing - and which panel 7 of the current strip tends to support.

You are tilting at a straw man when you try to invalidate my arguments saying that I defend that Tarquin killed his son just for one motive. The fact that I don't buy that Tarquin has been motivated by things he has never cared about doesn't means that there are a lot of motives for his actions. Like:
- Tarquin being a psycho
- Tarquin being an Egomaniac
- Tarquin using his sense of dramatics to his advantage
- Tarquin's control-freak syndrome
- Nale's denying him
- Nale's overplaying his hand when he is in an extremely weak position
- Etc...

The idea that Tarquin has any sort of sense of "responsibility" is laughable at the least, given that Tarquin has never ever shown any sense of responsibility ever.

Of course, in public he will bull**** to keep face, but the idea that he offed Nale for the better of the people is as laughable as the idea that he wants to build an unified empire to stop wars and improve the living standards of the inhabitants (an excuse he gave to Elan) or the notion that he is creating stability and feeding the people (an excuse he gave to Ian Starshine).

Tarquin is building an empire for his own glorification as a Villiain and he knows it and admits it. He doesn't fools himself thinking that he has any higher ideal there. He was even willing to let his successor transform the continent into a meat factory in exchange for a giant statue.

[Warren Dew]

Of course, in public he will bull**** to keep face, but the idea that he offed Nale for the better of the people
Who said anything about "for the better of the people"? Other than you, that is?

[The Pilgrim]

Who said anything about "for the better of the people"? Other than you, that is?


What was actually argued was that Tarquin's sense of responsibility played a part in the decision, which is a different thing - and which panel 7 of the current strip tends to support.

So, Tarquin has a "sense of responsibility", but that sense of responsibility is not towards society.

Then, towards who or what, exactly? :smallconfused:

[SavageWombat]

Don't discount the "spoiled" part just because you've turned the corner on "abused".

Nale does have a healthy ego in some respects - he thinks he's brilliant. His ego is large - just brittle.

Tarquin may not have given Nale the respect he sought, but I'll bet everyone else (outside the party perhaps) did. He was the little prince who pushed, and shouted, and got what he wanted in every way - except Daddy's respect. He probably got told over and over how smart, talented, handsome and perfect he was - surely his father's son - except in the one way that really mattered.

If Nale didn't have class levels he'd have wound up on the stripper pole for sure.

[F.Harr]

Tarquin was also the final authority of Society, and invested with the powers of Judge, Jury, and Executioner (A power Paladins and Archons tend to have in Lawful Good societies - their code and the ramifications against their soul keep them pure and just in their judgements). And as I editted in: A witness is only untrustworthy if it has reason to lie or has an incomplete picture.

No. If Tarquin were acting for society, it would have been public. Since he's evil, it would have also been painful and bloody. The morning finding Nale torn into to in the main square would have been classic. No, Tarquin is acting privately, not as the final arbiter of his socity.


Sooo, 914 is out!

So much for Tarquin's supposed "sense of justice" that forced him to make the "hardest decision of his life".



I really don't understand where you get "justice" from. Picking up after mistakes has nothing to do with justice. it's tidiness.


Don't discount the "spoiled" part just because you've turned the corner on "abused".

Nale does have a healthy ego in some respects - he thinks he's brilliant. His ego is large - just brittle.

Tarquin may not have given Nale the respect he sought, but I'll bet everyone else (outside the party perhaps) did. He was the little prince who pushed, and shouted, and got what he wanted in every way - except Daddy's respect. He probably got told over and over how smart, talented, handsome and perfect he was - surely his father's son - except in the one way that really mattered.

If Nale didn't have class levels he'd have wound up on the stripper pole for sure.

Huh. So he was spoiled not be his father but by those fawning on his father and his dad just ignored it and expected Nale to do likewise? Interesinting, I like it.

Anyway, I think it's interesting that Tarquin hoped Nale would grow to be a better villain and that's why he held off. Huh.

[pendell]

So, Tarquin has a "sense of responsibility", but that sense of responsibility is not towards society.

Then, towards who or what, exactly? :smallconfused:

Towards his clan, which in this analogy means "his adventuring group".

I agree that Tarquin cares nothing for the EOB or anyone in it save as they personally aggrandize him, but there is a small group of beings in the universe he is accountable to and actually cares about.

And also ... a responsibility so ancient that it goes back to the dawn of time.

In OOTSworld, when someone is murdered, it falls to their nearest and dearest to avenge them.

This is why Roy is pursuing Xykon. He started this quest because Eugene Greenhilt swore an oath of vengance against Xykon, and he can have no rest until that oath is fulfilled. He swore that oath because Xykon (as a living human) murdered Master Fyron, his teacher.

His interview with the Deva shows up in the prequel book. He was not chastised for swearing an oath of vengance against Xykon, only for abandoning it without following it through.

Eugene was not disqualified from being both lawful and good for swearing vengeance against Xykon. Nor was he chastised for it. It follows therefore that avenging the murder of your nearest and dearest is written in the objective Law And Good that moves OOTSworld -- in the "Big book alight with Holy Fire" the Deva alluded to in her interview with Roy.

Tarquin doesn't ascribe to the conventional moral code, of course. But he damn well understands about vengeance. That there is a price to be paid for murder, and the person to collect it is his nearest and dearest. Tarquin was willing to forgo this for his son right up to the moment his son disowned him.

Where does that put Tarquin?

You want to be free of me ? Fine. We're now two independent humans without connection.

But the slate is not clean.

You owe me a debt for the murder of my best friend, and I will collect that debt in full.

Which he did.

To avenge the wrong done to him personally, to avenge the wrong done to his friend, to satisfy the rest of his team, to hold the team together, and to set an example for the legions of the EOB. In that order of importance, I believe.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Warren Dew]

Who said anything about "for the better of the people"? Other than you, that is?


So, Tarquin has a "sense of responsibility" ...

Then, towards who or what, exactly? :smallconfused:
Towards his adventuring party and the evil tripartite empire they've created as their life's work, of course. What else?

[Astroturtle]

Tarquin really should've just had one of his wizards research a variant of the Clone spell.

Then he could've have the Tarquin MK. 2 he wanted.

[The Pilgrim]

Towards his clan, which in this analogy means "his adventuring group".

I respectifully think that your assumption doesn't holds water.

Nale killed three children of Malack. Tarquin's opinion on Malacks reaction? "ridiculous feud". Tarquin's plan? To manipulate the rest of the group into acting as pressure to force Malack into not only giving up on his revenge, but also accepting his children's murderer as a fellow "clan" member.

Nale kills Malack. Tarquin's reaction? Offer Nale to take his place.

Laurin freaks out at Nale when learning that he killed Malack. Tarquin's reaction? "Stay professional", then "I'm sure I can smooth things over" with her.

Laurin disitegrates Nale. Tarquin's reaction? "That was overkill".

All that doesn't scream respect for his adventuring group.

Your digression assuming that there is an obligation in the OOTS world to avenge fallen comrades does not hold water, neither. Eugene made an Oath of Vengeance, and while that's what keeps him stuck, the reason is not that he needs to enact revenge in order to be accepted into the LG afterlife, but that he has to finish what he started [1 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0491.html)] [2 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0495.html)]

You are building up an objective logical falacy here:
- Eugene swore an oath of vengeance
- He wasn't disqualified as LG
- Therefore, vengeance is part of what a LG is supposed to do.

That's a sofism, like saying:
- All men are mortal
- All pigs are mortal
- Therefore, all men are pigs

Because, if someone of other alignment makes an oath of vengeance, that wouldn't disqualify them as members of that aligment, neither. A CG, for example, wouldn't be disqualified from his alignment for swearing vengeance.

Therefore, the act of swearing vengeance, by itself, isn't relevant in regards to the Law-Chaos axis.

Now, Tarquin understands about vengeance? Well, let's see what Tarquin thinks when it's Malack seeking legitimate vengeance over Nale for the murder of three children:
"Ridiculous", "petty revenge".

However, if it's a random bounty hunter threathening him with a can of tomato soup? then all of a shudden it's necessary to frame him under false charges and force him to fight his best friend in a gladiatorial arena.

Where do all this drives us to? To the fact that, as I said in a past message, Tarquin only really cares about himself. He has two basic laws governing his decisions:

I- I'm the center of the universe
II- If two forces collide, I'll favor the one closer to my interests

If a bounty hunter has gone uppity on me, that's a direct insult and I must extract revenge. But if it's Malack seeking revenge on my son for three of his sons killed, then Malack must give up.

Nale signed his death sentence the very moment he denied his father. But not because Tarquin was lifted of any obligation towards him and, thus, his obligation towards his "clan" took preference. But because Nale had now wronged him, directly, and since he had ceased to be of any value, Tarquin had no reason to not extract inmediate revenge for the insult.

Tarquin stated three reasons in-comic for killing Nale:
1) Because that was the price for killing his "best friend"
2) Because Nale had failed as a Villliain on his own
3) Because Nale was robbing him of too much screen time

Of these 3 reasons:
1) The first is plain false, as the prince for killing his "best friend" was to take over his position, until Nale refused that.
2) The second is plain false, as what really bothered Tarquin is that he had failed in turning Nale into a piece of his game
3) This is the only one that seems to hold any truth. Because it pays service to the only thing Tarquin respects: Himself.

Ok, there is the Rules of Drama also. Tarquin respects them. However, note how Tarquin always carefully selects the ones that suit his own Ego. Because it's all about him, always.

In fact, he is gonna screw up sooner rather than later for believing that Elan is the main hero and he is the main villiain of the story. When in fact Elan is a follower and he is a B-villiain.

And that's about it.

....

Through, that doesn't stops me from enjoying our spirited debate :smallsmile:

Respectifuly

Me

[Warren Dew]

All that doesn't scream respect for his adventuring group.
Where does "respect" come into it? We were talking about "responsibility". Your posts keep conflating different concepts.

Not that one can't respect someone as a person and still think some of their attitudes are silly - just that it's irrelevant to the issue of responsibility.

[The Pilgrim]

Where does "respect" come into it? We were talking about "responsibility". Your posts keep conflating different concepts.

Not that one can't respect someone as a person and still think some of their attitudes are silly - just that it's irrelevant to the issue of responsibility.

You can interchange "respect" for "responsibility" in my prior message and it's content still holds.

So, since you haven't adressed any of my points and just stretched my words looking for a hole to disregard all my arguments with a falacy, I have nothing else to discuss with you.

There is people who debate, and then there is people who are looking for an excuse to collide. You belong to the second group and I' not interested in wasting my time.

No hard feelings, but that's about it.

[veti]

It seems odd to me to state that Tarquin killing Nale is Tarquin taking responsibility for having made Nale what he is. To me it seems like to say that Tarquin made Nale what he is sorta makes Nale a victim... and then the correct, responsible parent's action is to kill the child whose villainy is ultimately the parent's own fault? Seems to me more like Nale paid the ultimate price for Tarquin being a narcissistic self-obsessed dad, while Tarquin's "sacrifice" is now "oh well, guess I'll have to rely on the other kid to ensure my legacy. Good thing I had a spare!" That's what "responsibility" looks like?

Yes, Nale paid the price for Tarquin's all-round vileness. I have to say, it's not often I feel such personal and visceral loathing for any fictional character as I feel for Tarquin. He's up there with Iago and Bill Sikes and email spammers. No fate is bad enough for him. He should be permanently paralysed and handed over to Belkar with a note explaining that he ordered Mr Scruffy to be spayed, and I would vigorously applaud what follows, but even that wouldn't really scratch the surface of what he deseves.

However, that doesn't invalidate what Pendell said. Tarquin is cleaning up his own mess. Personally I think his prime motivation here, as in everything he does, is narcissism - everything has to be about him, the idea of outsourcing "disciplining his son" would be anathema to his ego. And as Zaphod Beeblebrox put it: "If there's anything more important than my ego around here, I want it caught and shot now".

[Warren Dew]

You can interchange "respect" for "responsibility" in my prior message and it's content still holds.
No, it doesn't.

When my kids fight, I often consider the reasons for their conflict to be ridiculous, as you note Tarquin considered the reasons for the infighting between Malack and Nale, but that doesn't change the fact that I still feel and act on a sense of responsibility to my kids.

When my daughter throws a tantrum, I may try to smooth things over, and I might consider the tantrum to be an overreaction, similar to Tarquin considering smoothing things over with Laurin or considering her disintegration of Nale's body to be overkill, but that doesn't change the fact that I still feel and act on a sense of responsibility to my daughter.

Your examples were essentially irrelevant to whether Tarquin was acting out of responsibility to his adventuring group and their empires, which he was.

[skim172]

To be fair, Nale probably has valid reason to believe his father might be against him.

Although I agree with your observation that no character in this comic seems to have a healthy relationship with their fathers. By contrast, nobody seems to have issues with their mother. It's actually kinda funny how consistent it is.

Roy's mom is angelic, Elan's mother is a saint, Haley's mother was the stable one of the family, and even Redcloak is strongly motivated by revenge for his mom.

By contrast, Roy's dad is the worst person ever, Elan's father is a sociopath, and Haley's dad ruined her life. Even Miko had a difficult relationship with her surrogate father figure, Shojo. And everyone else has no father - the male authorities in their lives are either not mentioned or not a direct parent. Durkon has a grandpappy. Redcloak had an uncle. Hinjo had an uncle.

Of those I can think of, the only fathers mentioned who are not terrible are Right-eye, Xykon's daddy (who he murdered), MitD's dad, and Therkla's biological dad (though she had a troubled father-surrogate relationship with Kubota). And only Right-Eye got any screen-time - in a prequel book.


*Notable exception - Vaarsuvius. Left V out because we don't know exactly if V is a dad or a mom. V seems to be a generally caring parent - save for that one time V went mad with arcane power and traumatized them for life. And to be frank, V did kind of abandon them in a search for arcane power. Inkyrius seems to be a good parent.

Although, I would point out that V's relationship with Aardinarius is also somewhat surrogate-parental, and Aardy kicked V out.

(edit)
Ah, of course - Daigo! He seems like a good guy. Though technically his kid isn't born yet, so who knows how their relationship turns out.

[F.Harr]

"To be fair, Nale probably has valid reason to believe his father might be against him."

I don't know. Tarquin seems to want Nale to be a great villain and Elan to be a great hero. Also, he didn't kill Nale years ago.

Still, it's not a bad observation.

[Dodom]

By contrast, Roy's dad is the worst person ever, Elan's father is a sociopath, and Haley's dad ruined her life.

I have no idea if this was on purpose, but I'd count those three as three variants on one case. The three fathers made the exact same mistake and stubbornly stuck to it to the end. They all tried to make their children into themselves and ignored how harmful this was. And whether the father was good, neutral or evil turned out proportional to how messed up the child ended:
- Roy's father begrudgingly allowed Roy to find his own way. He fully disapproved of fighter college, but if I recall right did no more to stop Roy than snarky remarks. Roy turned out fine, but with no love for his old man.
- Haley's father never allowed anything to change his worldview so Haley spent her formative years learning that the world is a nasty place. He was firmly convinced that distrusting everyone would be the best for her, even though it was not working that great for himself. Haley turned out redeemable, but with big issues to overcome first.
- Nale's father actively worked to stop Nale from moving on, and was always ready to sacrifice anything and anyone for his own goals. His idea of how his son should grow up was one of these goals, and when his son's character turned out not to fit too well into the role he had cut for him, he attempted to change his son instead of changing his plans. Nale turned out messed up beyond what the OOTSverse could probably rehabilitate, even if he was given that chance.
I like to view that trio of bad dads as a play on how the same mistake can have different consequences depending on what's your general attitude and how far you're willing to go to drag your victim into it.


Back to the original topic, I don't think stopping Nale was Tarquin's responsability. Tarquin doesn't disapprove Nale's crimes. As pointed out, Tarquin wasn't disappointed that Nale was evil, he was disappointed that he did it with no style.
Killing Malak was an inconvenience to him, but he's not opposed to killing people that get in one's way. He was upset because that one affected him directly, but that didn't infringe on his own moral code.
I see two reasons for Tarquin to kill Nale:
- Practically, Nale had antagonised his party so much that he had the choice between getting rid of him and quitting the evil overlord business. I don't think it justifies his choice: he freely picked power over family, he could have decided that he had done enough harm to society yet and tried to fix his family if nothing else, but that wasn't in him.
- But mostly, pride. Nale rejected him, went on his way, and when he came back, it was because his own adventuring was taking him to a gate he happened to be on the way to, not to crawl back begging to be given another chance. Nale did the only thing that had any chance of getting to Tarquin: he humiliated him.
And I don't consider any of those reasons to justify killing someone. Given the story's universe, he probably would end up executed anyway, but the least he deserves is having it done over his actual crimes, not over not being daddy's puppet, and by someone who won't see it as having the last word. Tarquin is simply below the job of executioner.
Seriously, I have no idea what I'd require as a moral standard to be an executioner, it's probably not the job I'd hold in the highest esteem if it was a thing in my country, but I know for sure Tarquin isn't up to it.

[The Pilgrim]

Seriously, I have no idea what I'd require as a moral standard to be an executioner, it's probably not the job I'd hold in the highest esteem if it was a thing in my country, but I know for sure Tarquin isn't up to it.

Well, historically the job of a executioner was regarded as extremely low in the social scale. It's no coincidence that in pop culture an executioner is usually portrayed as a hooded man (to conceal his face).

BTW, nice exposition. Now I'm wondering if, after meeting Haley and Elan's fathers, Roy is going to re-evaluate his own father as "not being that bad after all".

[Rakoa]

Yeah, executioners were very frowned upon. The hood was generally to conceal his identity because people probably would have stoned him if they knew who he was. Actually, most executioners hated their jobs but couldn't find work doing anything else.

[veti]

Yeah, executioners were very frowned upon. The hood was generally to conceal his identity because people probably would have stoned him if they knew who he was. Actually, most executioners hated their jobs but couldn't find work doing anything else.

[citation needed]

As far as I can find, the idea of the executioner being hooded is one of those relatively modern inventions that's been back-projected into our popular image of history. There's a story of the executioner of Charles I being hooded, but the story itself implies that this was an unusual circumstance.

[pendell]

It could be because some executioners were shamefully, horribly, detestably bad at their job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ketch). If I was Jack Ketch I certainly wouldn't want to show my face in public.

See, when you decapitate someone, it's supposed to be done in one clean blow. The person shouldn't still be alive and screaming after 42 clumsily executed blows, so badly done that at last the executioner turns to the watching crowd and begs if there's anyone in the crowd who is able to finish the job. The crowd responded that if he didn't do it himself they'd kill HIM, and serve him right. The particular anecdote just related wasn't Ketch himself, but it wasn't uncommon (http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.ca/2011/05/may-27th-1541-execution-of-margaret-de.html).

No, not at all (http://tudorblog.com/2012/05/01/a-grisly-execution-2/).

It turns out that killing a human properly with a minimum of fuss is actually highly skilled work; it isn't something to be done by a teenage butcher's apprentice, who oftentimes was the one who had the job.

I can darn well understand, if I was in the same profession, not wanting to be associated with such a clumsy butcher in ANY way, shape , or form.

Respectfully,

Brian P.