Strip 913: Tarquin's defining moment

[stavro375]

I've always admired how incredibly unique Tarquin's character is, and amused by his mix of joviality, pragmatism, and genre awareness. *Yet I've also been puzzled by how he can simultaneously be a jolly old man and so utterly ruthless -- proudly writing out his son's name out of captured slaves, crucified and burned alive being only the most notable example.

Yet 913 contains a clear window into his soul: General Tarquin is an extreme control freak, who doesn't just know what everyone around him is doing, but whose ego requires him to have a hand in the opinions and actions of everyone he knows.

He isn't just "manipulating [Elan] into tacitly accepting [his] authority" -- he's manipulating everyone.

It's the only way to explain how he's willing to move heaven and earth to protect Nale when the latter's a part of his schemes, but will murder his son in cold blood after the son declares he won't be a pawn.

Consider: his son murders his best friend, yet Tarquin still wants to defend him. He's unfazed when his (other) son rejects him and everyone he stands for, but was being clearly infuriated by his argument with Ian Starshine's.

On one level, Nale didn't just murder Tarquin's best friend, but gloated about it. There's a price to be paid for that. But on a deeper level... Letting Laurin extract her revenge means losing control of the situation. He wouldn't just lose a son, but an easily manipulated pawn. Tarquin's subconscience won't let that happen.

When the pawn wants a promotion to king? It's outlived it's usefulness.

Tarquin was clearly unfazed by Elan's earlier attempt to overthrow him -- because he anticipated it (it doesn't take an elaborate party to figure how naive a do-gooder Élan is), and even managed to work his son's idealism into his plans. But when a hardened criminal unexpectedly engages Tarquin in a political debate, and begins winning? Thats a problem.

It takes an unusual dictator to let the local news anchors say what they want on live (TV?), with secret policeman on standby to assassinate and replace ones that make a fuss... But where's the fun in not giving the news the leeway to tell the truth, and manipulating them into hiding it?

There are easier ways of living the high life than organizing a team of 6 into infiltrating and secretly running the region's 3 largest powers, but think of how much more influence a dictator has than a merchant.

And of course, Tarquin had no reason to tell Elan his plans for the destroyed gate, other than to manipulate the latter into doing his bidding anyway.

[Aolbain]

In lack of anything better to say: +1

[Chad30]

Tarquin is affably, laughably evil, and a serious control freak. I recently read the "Tarquin isn't cold" thread, going 'round and 'round about what this latest comic means. Personally I think it means that whether he genuinely cares for people or not, he has his limits with everyone, and Nale stomped all over that last nerve until he pretty much had to die.

[EMichael]

I have a bit of a different take on Tarquin's motives.

I don't think he killed Nale because he "was no longer useful" as many forum posters seem to think. (Nale stopped being a useful pawn years ago.) I think that Tarquin killed Nale because that is what Nale asked for.

Tarquin cares deeply about his sons. He wants to help them achieve their goals. (He does put his own goals ahead of Elan's, but even there he still tries to find some sort of compromise.) Since Nale was born Tarquin has done his best to ensure that Nale has the best chances for survival and success. However, in their last conversation Nale tells Tarquin that he does not want his father's help and protection. Tarquin realizes that Nale does not want the things that Tarquin wants for him. In that moment he decides that it is time for his son to be treated like an adult. That means that Tarquin gives Nale what he wants, namely he wants Tarquin to "cut the apron strings" and stop helping him just because he happens to be Tarquin's son.

Nale, being the narcissistic fool that he is, does not realize how much his father had been helping him. If anyone else had killed Malack Tarquin would have killed them immediately. Nale's death is the direct result of receiving exactly what he asked for.

[Kish]

I think that Tarquin killed Nale because that is what Nale asked for.
I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

[littlebum2002]

Isn't that the same reason Nale wants to kill Elan? Because he wouldn't join the Guild under Nale?


I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Nale asked Tarquin to stop treating him differently than everyone else. Since Tarquin would kill someone for public urination, he would obviously kill to revenge his friend. The only reason Tarquin kept him alive was because he was his son. Nale was very shortsighted not to see that.

[The Pilgrim]

20+ threads open about #913, but at last we get one with a meaningful OP.

Congratz.

[Kish]

Isn't that the same reason Nale wants to kill Elan? Because he wouldn't join the Guild under Nale?
Or to apply one catchphrase which perfectly described both situations...

"NO ONE DENIES ME!"

[Chad30]

While Nale didn't literally say "I want you to kill me", he said he wanted Tarquin to quit helping him. To stop treating him special. Unfortunately for Nale, he didn't realize the only reason he hadn't already been killed was because he was on Tarquin's "I value this person" list. If Nale really didn't want anything to do with his dad, he shouldn't have returned to the Empire of Blood.

[Shale]

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Nale wanted to kill his father and all his allies, and rule their kingdoms with an iron fist. Tarquin knew that.

[DarthEnderX]

This was, quite possibly, the single most satisfying strip in the entire series.

[The Pilgrim]

If Nale really didn't want anything to do with his dad, he shouldn't have returned to the Empire of Blood.

This may be as good a time as any to remember that Nale returned to the Empire to find the Gate, not to mess with his Dad.

It was Tarquin who forced himself into Nale's plans, not the reverse.

[Kish]

I have a request. Which everyone is, of course, free to comply with or not.

If you want to answer my two questions posted upthread, then please do so. If you don't want to, then please don't. But please don't quote them and post something that isn't an answer to either one of them, in any event.

[nohamotyo]

Since this has been floating around in my head for a few days, let me get this off my chest (hello, horrendous mixed metaphor).

Tarquin's killing of Nale reminds me of a scene in The Sandman in which Dream imprisons a demon. They are in Dream's domain, so Dream is physically incapable of harming Azazel. The demon foolishly tells Dream that he rescinds his right to protection without any reservations, and Dream uses that opportunity to engage and imprison Azazel. To analogize that to #913, Tarquin is like Dream in being prevented from harming Nale, and when Nale foolishly rejects the protection granted by custom, he pays an enormous price.

None of this is to excuse Tarquin, who has nowhere near the redeeming traits that Dream does and whose killing of Nale stems from an inability to understand him or treat him as anything but a pawn. I do find Tarquin going from refusing to harm Nale to murdering him in an instant fascinating, and considering the Giant's affinity for Neil Gaiman I wonder if this scene was in any way inspired by that one.
---
To answer Kish: Of course Nale didn't want to be stabbed in the chest. The answer to the second question is murkier, since Tarquin has shown such a lack of understanding of Nale that it's conceivable he thought Nale had a death wish.

[Steward]

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

No, not literally. I think what the OP meant by "he was asking for it" was the colloquial sense of the word (ie "someone who wanders into rush hour traffic blindfolded is asking to get hit by a car,") not literally a request from Nale to Tarquin asking for death. That is, Nale didn't intend for Tarquin to kill him but if he had had some distance from the situation he would have realized that he was essentially making an enemy out of a cutthroat tyrant and that doing so is dangerous if you don't have any means of shielding yourself. Nale's death wasn't solicited deliberately but it was a likely outcome of his own actions.

I don't think that Tarquin thought that Nale wanted him to kill him either. I think he was instead just understanding that Nale wanted to be treated like an enemy rather than just a wayward prodigal son, and from there he just defaulted to his standard treatment of enemies who are at his mercy.


None of this is to excuse Tarquin, who has nowhere near the redeeming traits that Dream does and whose killing of Nale stems from an inability to understand him or treat him as anything but a pawn. I do find Tarquin going from refusing to harm Nale to murdering him in an instant fascinating, and considering the Giant's affinity for Neil Gaiman I wonder if this scene was in any way inspired by that one.

I'm not familiar with Sandman but I really liked that analogy. Nale/the demon didn't ask to be killed, but they (presumably inadvertently) drew attention to their own vulnerabilities.


This may be as good a time as any to remember that Nale returned to the Empire to find the Gate, not to mess with his Dad.

It was Tarquin who forced himself into Nale's plans, not the reverse.


Agreed, but Nale chose to attack the Order of the Stick in/near Tarquin's palace, something that Tarquin would obviously notice and respond to -- especially since Nale ended up fighting Malack and Elan (people that Tarquin cares for). I realize it was an attack of opportunity and not something that Nale intended but it would have been strange for him to think that Tarquin wouldn't get involved.

[Paseo H]

Or to apply one catchphrase which perfectly described both situations...

"NO ONE DENIES ME!"

This is basically it. I accept that I can be proven wrong if the narrative gives evidence elsewise in the future, but given that he was willing to overlook even the death of his best friend until Nale denied him, it's pretty clear that's what this is.

Others saying "It wasn't that he denied Tarquin, he just asked for a cessation of special treatment" is a distinction without a difference.

[Mightymosy]

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?



Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?


No to both.

[The Oni]

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?


These are trick questions. Of course Nale didn't want Tarquin to stab him, and even if Tarquin understood nothing about human emotions (which is unlikely) it would be irrelevant.

He DID, however, plainly state that he wanted no charity and no nepotism, which of course means no patronizing and no special treatment. So Tarquin did exactly what Nale asked for, revoked that special treatment, and then did exactly what he would do to anyone who was not Nale and who had committed the same crimes that Nale had.

Which happened to involve a well-placed knife wound to the chest.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I agree that this scene was more about Tarquin respecting Nale's wishes and giving him his freedom than anything else. Though yes, Tarquin is obviously a control freak as well.

[The Pilgrim]

I'd say that Nale was not actually asking his father to treat him like anyone else. But rather was asking his father to respect him and his individuality.

Which his father, of course, failed to produce, giving him instead the ultimate example of disrespect for Nale as a person, by killing him and taking from him everything he is and could be.

[Chad30]

It's not as if Tarquin could arrested him and had him stand trial. The penalty would be death anyway. He's too dangerous, and has too many connections, to just be given a life sentence.

[Warren Dew]

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?
What one asks for and what one wants are often two different things.

In retrospect, immediately after the stabbing, I'm sure Nale realized that complete independence from his father wasn't what he wanted, after all. But by then it was too late.


I'd say that Nale was not actually asking his father to treat him like anyone else. But rather was asking his father to respect him and his individuality.
I don't think so. Nale explicitly says he would have preferred that Tarquin allow Malack to hunt him down, which goes well beyond respecting him and his individuality.


Yet 913 contains a clear window into his soul: General Tarquin is an extreme control freak, who doesn't just know what everyone around him is doing, but whose ego requires him to have a hand in the opinions and actions of everyone he knows.
Control freaks tend to get angry when their plans don't work out, thus the "freak" part. Tarquin is usually unfazed. He's certainly a manipulator and a plotter, but I don't think he's a classic control freak.


It's the only way to explain how he's willing to move heaven and earth to protect Nale when the latter's a part of his schemes, but will murder his son in cold blood after the son declares he won't be a pawn.
This is too simplistic an analysis. Nale was refusing to be Tarquin's pawn the whole time he was working for Xykon, yet Tarquin was still restraining Malack from hunting him down.

[Amphiox]

The statement in the OP about manipulating people in tacitly submitting to T's authority is apt.

We see it most obviously in a short term example in the first few panels with Elan.

But then we realize that T's whole engagement in the race for the gate has been a plan to do the same to Nale (which failed).

And we also see a hint of someone T had already manipulated into tacitly accepting his authority long ago in Laurin. She was furious with Nale but all it took was one word from T and she stood down (and we get hints that T had already been holding her back from seeking retribution on Nale for some time).

[Yoyoyo]

What one asks for and what one wants are often two different things.

In retrospect, immediately after the stabbing, I'm sure Nale realized that complete independence from his father wasn't what he wanted, after all. But by then it was too late.


This is a very astute observation. In a way, Nale's bragging about killing Malack was almost like seeking Tarquin's approval. "See how great I am Dad, I learned your lessons and out flanked your best bud. The student is now the master!" But Nale was a long way from being the master and, when he demanded that Tarquin treat him as an equal, Tarquin did as asked. So yes, Nale *was* asking to be killed, but as the quote above notes, Nale might not have realized what he was saying.

Remarkably, I think Tarquin will feel bad for killing Nale in a "look what you made me do" ugly sort of way.

[Scow2]

This is basically it. I accept that I can be proven wrong if the narrative gives evidence elsewise in the future, but given that he was willing to overlook even the death of his best friend until Nale denied him, it's pretty clear that's what this is.

Others saying "It wasn't that he denied Tarquin, he just asked for a cessation of special treatment" is a distinction without a difference.

The question becomes "Would Tarquin have killed Nale had Nale NOT racked up a large list of personal and serious grievences against Tarquin and his team, the latest of which being the murder of Tarquin's best friend."

It's not so much as "Nobody Denies me" as much as "If you're going to deny me, don't make me your enemy." Or even him just being unable to kill his own son as long as there was a chance his son could be 'redeemed' one way or another (Either by joining him, as he expected from Nale, or otherwise by making him proud, as he expects Elan to do).

Of course, Tarquin also demonstrated just how brutal his Empire is, and how influential his favor is. It's a reminder to Elan, the Order, and everyone else that, even if they don't WANT the General's help, the system is so stacked against everyone that they need his 'blessing' to even survive here.

[Yoyoyo]

"Nobody denies me" is just as true for Nale as Tarquin. But denying Tarquin has far more consequences than denying Nale, which everyone seems to get away with doing.

[EMichael]

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Others in this thread have already answered these questions, but since you directed them at me I feel like I should give my personal input.

No and No.

However, I think that Tarquin knew that there were no other options that he could take that would in any way give Nale what he just demanded.

The only reason Nale could have lived through the events of the day would have been his father's protection. I suppose Tarquin could have explained that to Nale, but that would have been just another instance of Tarquin bullying Nale into going along with his plans. ("Be a good minion or I will kill you." or something similar) Nale would still be resentful of his father and he would be humiliated even more as the result of the intervention.

A quick death at his father's hand was the only option available that allowed Nale to achieve his independence with any kind of dignity.

[Paseo H]

The question becomes "Would Tarquin have killed Nale had Nale NOT racked up a large list of personal and serious grievences against Tarquin and his team, the latest of which being the murder of Tarquin's best friend."

It's not so much as "Nobody Denies me" as much as "If you're going to deny me, don't make me your enemy." Or even him just being unable to kill his own son as long as there was a chance his son could be 'redeemed' one way or another (Either by joining him, as he expected from Nale, or otherwise by making him proud, as he expects Elan to do).

Of course, Tarquin also demonstrated just how brutal his Empire is, and how influential his favor is. It's a reminder to Elan, the Order, and everyone else that, even if they don't WANT the General's help, the system is so stacked against everyone that they need his 'blessing' to even survive here.

The problem with this bit of nuance you want to add to the equation, is that it still gives wiggle room to say that this was anything less than an act of pure, defining evil on Tarquin's part.

[Chad30]

I'm pretty sure that's a neutral action. Evil would be taking him to get tortured or something. I guess it isn't a good act, despite the fact that it's an evil person getting killed, but it's debatable that it's "anything less than evil".

[Paseo H]

Stop being wow'd by big showy spectacles of carnage and mayhem. Some of the most evil acts that can be are very calm and quiet. Choosing to throw your own loved ones under a bus for narcissistic ambition? Evil, regardless of how gentle.

[Scow2]

The problem with this bit of nuance you want to add to the equation, is that it still gives wiggle room to say that this was anything less than an act of pure, defining evil on Tarquin's part.
Honestly? On the Evil-o-Meter, it's really not an act of pure, defining evil. It's actually pretty seperate from the Alignment charts: As soon as Nale disowned his own father, cutting the familial bond that protected Nale from Tarquin and his friends despite the grievances and atrocities he's commited on them, Tarquin killing Nale to avenge the death of his best friend became no more evil than Eugene Greenhilt trying to destroy Xykon to avenge the death of his master.

Or, to go with a Star Wars reference - Obi-Wan fighting Anakin once his former padawan crossed too many lines, though he was unable to bring himself to deliver the killing blow (But did settle for leaving him to burn to death). Tarquin, being Evil, just happened to have his line be much narrower and hard to cross (Namely, nothing short of openly disowning - not merely defying - Tarquin would incur his vengeance). At the moment Nale disowned Tarquin, the latter allowed him to judge his former son on his own merits - and saw him as the rabid dog needing to be put down that he was.

Speaking from Real Life - if I were to pull a knife on my own father (Or kill his best friend) and declare how much I have always hated him and want nothing to do with him despite how much he's gone through to raise me despite my behavioral and financial strain I've put on him, I'd expect to be shot dead on the spot.

[Chad30]

Stop being wow'd by big showy spectacles of carnage and mayhem. Some of the most evil acts that can be are very calm and quiet. Choosing to throw your own loved ones under a bus for narcissistic ambition? Evil, regardless of how gentle.

Throwing them under the bus for no good reason is evil. Killing them because they committed horrible actions against you, mocked you to your face about it, and plan to do more, is not evil. Tarquin had a really good reason to kill Nale. That's what makes it neutral, instead of for instance trying to kill someone just because they didn't abandon their friends for you (a stranger).

[Warren Dew]

Stop being wow'd by big showy spectacles of carnage and mayhem. Some of the most evil acts that can be are very calm and quiet. Choosing to throw your own loved ones under a bus for narcissistic ambition? Evil, regardless of how gentle.
Can you, or anyone, provide a reference regarding the alignment system treating actions against one's "own loved ones" differently from actions against strangers?

[David Argall]

Nale was guilty of murder, and execution was a lawful punishment of that under the laws in question. Now we might ask if Tarquin was rather chaotic in just offing him, but there is nothing particularly evil in disposing of him.
Now as his guardhouse lawyer, I of course would plea self defense, but I would be horrified by my client's bragging about things he should not even confess to. Self defense in essence is "I didn't want to do it, but I had no choice." Nale is smiling, and saying how proud he is of killing Malack.
Malack was going to attack him? Nale attacked him first and caused this hatred, and again we have our client doing his best to make us work.
Malack was a mass murderer? Again our client at best does not care.

So we end up with our idiot client rejecting a plea, made by the judge yet, that he claim special privilege and demanding he be treated like any other criminal, and being surprised when he is. It's a little late, but a plea of diminished capacity might be in order. Or maybe we can argue that he should be punished for attempted suicide instead.

No, we have no real evidence here that Tarquin is evil, tho that is hardly in dispute. Maybe a lot of judges would not be so direct in carrying out the sentence, but any alignment could have done it.

[stavro375]

Wow guys, thanks for all the responses.


I have a bit of a different take on Tarquin's motives.

I don't think he killed Nale because he "was no longer useful" as many forum posters seem to think. (Nale stopped being a useful pawn years ago.) I think that Tarquin killed Nale because that is what Nale asked for.
My view is a bit different... up until strip 913, Nale was Tarquin's pawn. He wasn't always a useful pawn, but still, as Tarquin called him, an "easily-controlled leech". That alone would've bought Nale temporary safety...


Tarquin cares deeply about his sons. He wants to help them achieve their goals. (He does put his own goals ahead of Elan's, but even there he still tries to find some sort of compromise.) Since Nale was born Tarquin has done his best to ensure that Nale has the best chances for survival and success. However, in their last conversation Nale tells Tarquin that he does not want his father's help and protection. Tarquin realizes that Nale does not want the things that Tarquin wants for him. In that moment he decides that it is time for his son to be treated like an adult. That means that Tarquin gives Nale what he wants, namely he wants Tarquin to "cut the apron strings" and stop helping him just because he happens to be Tarquin's son.

Nale, being the narcissistic fool that he is, does not realize how much his father had been helping him. If anyone else had killed Malack Tarquin would have killed them immediately. Nale's death is the direct result of receiving exactly what he asked for.
So Tarquin's being a literal genie in 913? That's something I can get behind.




Control freaks tend to get angry when their plans don't work out, thus the "freak" part. Tarquin is usually unfazed. He's certainly a manipulator and a plotter, but I don't think he's a classic control freak.


This is too simplistic an analysis. Nale was refusing to be Tarquin's pawn the whole time he was working for Xykon, yet Tarquin was still restraining Malack from hunting him down.
Tarquin may not be a "classic" control freak, but always being in charge seems to be of paramount importance to him.
And note that when Tarquin first revealed Nale, Tarquin was willing to let Malack have his revenge... until Nale began talking about the gates.


20+ threads open about #913, but at last we get one with a meaningful OP.

Congratz.
Thank you.:smallwink:

[allenw]

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

I'm very tempted to say "Yes and Yes," actually. The situation has a suicide-by-cop-who's-also-your-Dad vibe to it.
However, I have to admit that Nale seems surprised (and not happily so) as he falls; and that Tarquin's simultaneous speech implies that Tarquin doesn't think Nale expected this particular response. So, I guess Nale really was just that stupid. Though I still could answer "perhaps, subconsciously" to your first question.

As far as the Good/Evil question goes: I can't see Tarquin's action, under these circumstances and in this context, as anything but Evil (unless he really is trying to protect Nale from a worse fate).
To me, the more interesting dynamic here is Law/Chaos. Lawful Evil Tarquin literally can't understand Nale's motivations, because those motivations are a desire for freedom and independence; in D&D terms, Chaos. If Nale ever was LE, I think he died as some other (evil) alignment.

[JackRackham]

I've always admired how incredibly unique Tarquin's character is, and amused by his mix of joviality, pragmatism, and genre awareness. *Yet I've also been puzzled by how he can simultaneously be a jolly old man and so utterly ruthless -- proudly writing out his son's name out of captured slaves, crucified and burned alive being only the most notable example.

Yet 913 contains a clear window into his soul: General Tarquin is an extreme control freak, who doesn't just know what everyone around him is doing, but whose ego requires him to have a hand in the opinions and actions of everyone he knows.

He isn't just "manipulating [Elan] into tacitly accepting [his] authority" -- he's manipulating everyone.

It's the only way to explain how he's willing to move heaven and earth to protect Nale when the latter's a part of his schemes, but will murder his son in cold blood after the son declares he won't be a pawn.

Consider: his son murders his best friend, yet Tarquin still wants to defend him. He's unfazed when his (other) son rejects him and everyone he stands for, but was being clearly infuriated by his argument with Ian Starshine's.

On one level, Nale didn't just murder Tarquin's best friend, but gloated about it. There's a price to be paid for that. But on a deeper level... Letting Laurin extract her revenge means losing control of the situation. He wouldn't just lose a son, but an easily manipulated pawn. Tarquin's subconscience won't let that happen.

When the pawn wants a promotion to king? It's outlived it's usefulness.

Tarquin was clearly unfazed by Elan's earlier attempt to overthrow him -- because he anticipated it (it doesn't take an elaborate party to figure how naive a do-gooder Élan is), and even managed to work his son's idealism into his plans. But when a hardened criminal unexpectedly engages Tarquin in a political debate, and begins winning? Thats a problem.

It takes an unusual dictator to let the local news anchors say what they want on live (TV?), with secret policeman on standby to assassinate and replace ones that make a fuss... But where's the fun in not giving the news the leeway to tell the truth, and manipulating them into hiding it?

There are easier ways of living the high life than organizing a team of 6 into infiltrating and secretly running the region's 3 largest powers, but think of how much more influence a dictator has than a merchant.

And of course, Tarquin had no reason to tell Elan his plans for the destroyed gate, other than to manipulate the latter into doing his bidding anyway.

I don't know, it seems to me Tarquin was just making a point.:smallcool:

[JackRackham]

And note that when Tarquin first revealed Nale, Tarquin was willing to let Malack have his revenge... until Nale began talking about the gates

Tarquin seems to have decided to protect Nale if it was possible to do so without sacrificing his empire. His mentioning the gates gave Tarquin an opening. Securing the gate would have allowed him to save Nale more permanently.

I think Tarquin would have been fine with Nale doing his own thing (he doesn't seem to have been hunting him down in his absence). But the only way to protect his life within the empire he built (after he's earned the hatred of Tarquin's party) was to add him to the team, thereby granting him the protection of the code of professionalism they all seem to follow to an unthinkable degree. We'll probably never know for sure whether this is the case, however. (Note that this argument is NOT incompatible with Tarquin also being a manipulative bastard; he is.)

In the end, this strip shows that Tarquin may care about his family, but he is not willing to sacrifice what he's built for them.

[Skamandros]

Tarquin seems to have decided to protect Nale if it was possible to do so without sacrificing his empire. His mentioning the gates gave Tarquin an opening.

An opening that he wouldn't have needed if he hadn't actively helped capture Nale just a few panels prior.

[C-Star]

I think this was the conclusion of a turbulent relationship. Nale is a product of Tarquin and its through our exposure to Nale we learn more about the Father of one of the main protagonist. What I find most interesting is that while we have been led to believe Elan whom is Chaotic Good is the complete 'opposite' of Nale who is supposedly Lawful Evil.

My conjecture would be this isn't true.

Nale is also chaotic and here is potentially the source of the major tension between him and his father. His father simply never understood him and it is in this strip he finally concludes that they are simply incompatible they have polar opposite methods. Tarquin is community based (albeit an evil community) while Nale is inherently individualistic.

You see that Nale has tried to emulate Tarquin in becoming the leader of his own team, by calling himself Lawful Evil and by attempting the complex and clever schemes that Tarquin is such a master at. What we see is utter disaster because Nale is so different to Tarquin. While Tarquin values his companions to Nale they're disposable (except Sabine). While Tarquin uses his schemes to create in his weird and awful view a better society. The only goal Nale has is personal glory and attention grabbing he has no sense of order, duty or community he is just a big ball of chaotic id.

The gate scene absolutely clarifies this for me. Nale is after personal individualistic glory while Tarquin's first thought is to his team mates, to his plans and to his well thought out goals. Tarquin has tried to reconcile this disparity between them time and time again as we have seen in the comic.

I think it is in this strip he finally understands his son. He can never have him reconcile with his plans, his group and his ambitions because they rely on working in the background and not taking centre stage. It is his light bulb moment that potentially Nale is not acting against him because of bad blood but because that is Nale's inherent nature; a chaotic egotistical maniac who is going to come to a bad end regardless.

He then gives his son potentially something he should have done along time ago his freedom. If Nale had that earlier then he may have turned out very differently (see Elan). I think this strip is Tarquin realised he failed as a father and then he does the only thing that his twisted lawful mindset would allow.

He rectifies his mistake.

[The Pilgrim]

Speaking from Real Life - if I were to pull a knife on my own father (Or kill his best friend) and declare how much I have always hated him and want nothing to do with him despite how much he's gone through to raise me despite my behavioral and financial strain I've put on him, I'd expect to be shot dead on the spot.

Except Nale did not pull a knife on Tarquin. And everything Tarquin invested in Nale wasn't to raise him, but to model a pawn.

But even then, you would probably be very dissapointed in Real Life. Assuming your father isn't a psychopatic mass murderer, of course. At a bare minimum, even if you forced his hand far FAR beyond what Nale has done in the comic, at a bare minimum he wouldn't shot you dead with no emotion on his face and a spiteful egomaniacal sentence as his last words to you.

[Zerter]

Killing Nale is a good act obviously. Though Tarquin did do with Neutral motives (exacting a justified revenge). Nale died the way he lived, a complete idiot. Always protected by something from having his own idiocy blow up in his face, it is a flaw in Elan that he did not finish him off a long time ago.

[Taelas]

Killing Nale is an obviously Evil act in this scenario. Nale was completely at Tarquin's mercy--and yes, he could have gotten Nale out of trouble without compromising his control of the Empire. Killing him instead of arresting him (and then releasing him later) is obviously Evil.

Yes, it would mean ignoring Nale's wishes for his own good. Tarquin could have pretended to go along with it and arrested Nale then let him "escape" later. I am absolutely certain he could have pulled it off if he wished.

But for once, Tarquin chose to respect Nale's wishes. That the idiot failed to realize that respecting his wishes would immediately result in his death (either at the hands of Laurin, Tarquin, or the Empire of Blood's chief executioner) is what makes him an idiot.

Tarquin had every reason to do it himself and no longer any reason not to. Nale killed his best friend, he made Tarquin look as if he had no control over him, and he utterly failed in "impressing" him. He was going to go out of his way to help Nale even after all of this, but that's because Nale was his son, and he wanted to protect him even then--and that outweighed everything else. (I do not subscribe to the theory that Tarquin only did this to protect his own reputation; Evil can have loved ones.)

[Paseo H]

(I do not subscribe to the theory that Tarquin only did this to protect his own reputation; Evil can have loved ones.)

The two are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, this was most certainly not a self defense situation, Nale was essentially crippled at that point, in the sense that there was literally nothing he could do, even against Elan. Tarquin + Laurin + the whole freaking dino-army, what could he do?

As Pilgrim stated, what decided this for me was Tarquin's entire manner. If he showed emotion, it would be easier to counterargue about Tarquin's motives, but what else you can say about a man who murders his loved ones to protect his reputation and feels nothing?

[Zerter]

Killing for justice/revenge (they being the same thing in this case) is a neutral motive, just like the Greenhilt oath had a neutral motive (which it does not have for Roy who is now doing it to save the world).

Killing Nale is a good act. Simply because Nale was the psychopathic loose cannon that he was, spreading evil as he goes. Letting Nale live would be a neutral (if you see it as passive, unable to kill him) or evil (I want you to go out into the world) act. Imagine the lives saved if Tarquin had stabbed him a long time ago.

[Paseo H]

Killing for justice/revenge (they being the same thing in this case) is a neutral motive, just like the Greenhilt oath had a neutral motive (which it does not have for Roy who is now doing it to save the world).

Revenge for what? Tarquin's poor, abused ego that he couldn't control everything? Revenge for a horrifying, bloodthirsty monster that would have ushered about an even greater mass murder than V? No, you can't give blanket 'neutral' motivation to revenge. Context does matter.


Imagine the lives saved if Tarquin had stabbed him a long time ago.

"Perhaps, by some cold calculus, the net benefit of villains lost to innocents sacrificed may ultimately prove beneficial to the world [...] The judgment was never mine to make!" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html)

V has spoken. It is not legitimate to factor by the cold calculus whether an act is good simply by the results.

In any case, Tarquin had no good intent with the act. It was simply eliminating an uppity minion, or avenging a monster possibly worse than even himself.

[Kish]

Killing for justice/revenge (they being the same thing in this case) is a neutral motive, just like the Greenhilt oath had a neutral motive (which it does not have for Roy who is now doing it to save the world).

...Justice?

Someone just suggested Tarquin has ever been motivated on any level by justice? I'm boggled.

(That the same person suggests in the same post that it would be justice to kill Nale for killing the vampire who was planning to turn the continent into a sapient-being cattle farm and that killing Nale was a good act because he was Nale is even more boggling. Malack's death was the one and only time in his life Nale did something that had a positive effect. I would even say, if you look at it in strictly consequentialist terms as you seem to be, that Nale's life has had a net positive effect, because of what he did in that one strip; Malack had centuries of causing more suffering than Nale could dream of ahead of him if he hadn't been stopped.)


Killing Nale is a good act. Simply because Nale was the psychopathic loose cannon that he was, spreading evil as he goes.
Killing an evil person is not a good act in and of itself. Xykon does not get nudged slightly toward Good every time he gets bored and entertains himself by killing a goblin who happens to be evil. And while Nale certainly doesn't have any form of bad karma from killing the horrible vampire lord, it doesn't bring him closer to Good either, since he didn't do it out of concern for Malack's victims (or at least for Malack's not-named-Nale victims).

[Imgran]

Killing an evil person is not a good act in and of itself.

Thank you. Some people need to stop living in video games. The common Western cultural defintion of "good" has more to it than "not evil."

Killing Nale is not evil. That doesn't make it good. It may make it just, but justice is not necessarily good. Time and place and context and intent all factor in.

[Adaon Nightwind]

Revenge for what? Tarquin's poor, abused ego that he couldn't control everything? Revenge for a horrifying, bloodthirsty monster that would have ushered about an even greater mass murder than V? No, you can't give blanket 'neutral' motivation to revenge. Context does matter.

I would like to distinguish between revenge and alignment motivation here. I would argue that Revenge is, of itself, a very emotional thing; as has been pointed out, good, neutral and evil beings can have loved ones; therefore can be driven to acts of revenge because they have been in a very real sense hurt by the murder of a loved one (or other factors).

In this context, i would remove an alignment motivation (or underlying alignment "anchor") as a factor, since revenge is motivated by the spontanous feelings of the person exacting said revenge.

Justice, however, if we - in this context of a D&D-Universe only! - define it as Revenge on a societal basis, must follow the underlying alignment of that society.

In this i would consider that indeed, a part of Tarquin would want revenge. But it does not seem to be his only, indeed not even a major factor of his decision to eliminate Nale.

Personally, the first post of this Thread seems to me the most probable explanation of the events.

[The Pilgrim]

(I do not subscribe to the theory that Tarquin only did this to protect his own reputation; Evil can have loved ones.)

I think that Tarquin's fanbase is taking "Evil can have loved ones" as if it means "Evil must have loved ones".

Can an evil guy have loved ones? Yes.

Can an evil guy not love anyone but himself? Yes.

To what group does Tarquin belong? As far as we have seen in the comic, I'm afraid more to the second than to the first. 'Cuz the semblance to love that he has shown for his sons is, in fact, love for himself, not for the person his sons are. And #913 kind of exemplifies it. Geez, he can't even fake it like most sociopaths do.

[Scow2]

Except Nale did not pull a knife on Tarquin. And everything Tarquin invested in Nale wasn't to raise him, but to model a pawn.

But even then, you would probably be very dissapointed in Real Life. Assuming your father isn't a psychopatic mass murderer, of course. At a bare minimum, even if you forced his hand far FAR beyond what Nale has done in the comic, at a bare minimum he wouldn't shot you dead with no emotion on his face and a spiteful egomaniacal sentence as his last words to you.

Which isn't what Tarquin did at all to Nale. He gave a "look what you made me do" speech to him, before hiding behind his Pokerface again.

[Warren Dew]

Thank you. Some people need to stop living in video games. The common Western cultural defintion of "good" has more to it than "not evil."
I would just note that on these forums, we're only allowed to discuss D&D alignment definitions of good and evil, and not real world moral justifications. However, you're still correct with respect to D&D alignments; there's a "neutral" category between "good" and "evil".


Killing Nale is not evil. That doesn't make it good. It may make it just, but justice is not necessarily good. Time and place and context and intent all factor in.
Yes.

[Seerow]

I have a bit of a different take on Tarquin's motives.

I don't think he killed Nale because he "was no longer useful" as many forum posters seem to think. (Nale stopped being a useful pawn years ago.) I think that Tarquin killed Nale because that is what Nale asked for.

Tarquin cares deeply about his sons. He wants to help them achieve their goals. (He does put his own goals ahead of Elan's, but even there he still tries to find some sort of compromise.) Since Nale was born Tarquin has done his best to ensure that Nale has the best chances for survival and success. However, in their last conversation Nale tells Tarquin that he does not want his father's help and protection. Tarquin realizes that Nale does not want the things that Tarquin wants for him. In that moment he decides that it is time for his son to be treated like an adult. That means that Tarquin gives Nale what he wants, namely he wants Tarquin to "cut the apron strings" and stop helping him just because he happens to be Tarquin's son.

Nale, being the narcissistic fool that he is, does not realize how much his father had been helping him. If anyone else had killed Malack Tarquin would have killed them immediately. Nale's death is the direct result of receiving exactly what he asked for.


This is my take on it as well.

[The Pilgrim]

Which isn't what Tarquin did at all to Nale. He gave a "look what you made me do" speech to him, before hiding behind his Pokerface again.

He gave him a "This is all your fault for not submiting to my authority" speech to him, before returning to his absence of emotion.

But you raise an interesting question: Does Tarquin's emotionless face means he isn't feeling emotions, or it's a poker face to hide them? I suppose that will be answered in comic eventually. But, to the date, we have not a single proof that Tarquin has ever shown an emotional reation triggered by empathy towards other being.

[Killer Angel]

These are trick questions. Of course Nale didn't want Tarquin to stab him, and even if Tarquin understood nothing about human emotions (which is unlikely) it would be irrelevant.

He DID, however, plainly state that he wanted no charity and no nepotism, which of course means no patronizing and no special treatment. So Tarquin did exactly what Nale asked for, revoked that special treatment, and then did exactly what he would do to anyone who was not Nale and who had committed the same crimes that Nale had.

Which happened to involve a well-placed knife wound to the chest.

Indeed.
And Nale was (still once) a fool, forgetting how cruel and cold blooded can be Tarquin.

[Dark Archon]

I very much liked this strip. Why? Because I like the way OOTS are going. In the beginning, it was "dungeon crawling fools" - title that pretty much summarised plot and characters. There was no depth, no inner side.
Things changed over time. Redcloak isn't just a Dragon to Xykon - he his own man with his own (or rather his god own) agenda. Every character got his own storyline, and we saw their true colors. The conflict is expanding, and not only in scope, but also in complexity.
Tarquin isn't very complex, though. He is dictator - and he is smart about that. In storytelling, we get used to utterly STUPID dictators, who takes themselves very seriosly - and Tarquin, who not just make plans (like his son), but actually make them work, is seen as complex? Just the contrast, I think. He isn't more complex than Xykon, he just thinks that ability to manipulate and predict is power, rather than "power is power".
And why Tarquin killed Nale? I think, he killed him, because he finally understood that Nale isn't going to be his successor. I don't want to quote all his words here, but it's obvious to me, that he saw Nale as heir. That isn't very strange. There is many people, who see their children as extension of own ego - as someone, who will follow their steps and will repeat their fate - only better.
The Nale said: "I'm my own man". Tarquin heard: "I'm not the Family anymore". And then, it was only logical to kill him.

[Taelas]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
Uh, yes, they kind of are, since I said I do not believe he did it only to save his reputation.

He could do it both to protect Nale and his reputation, yes, and I believe he did. But I do not believe that he didn't care about Nale and only did it for his reputation. Tarquin cares for people he is close to.


As Pilgrim stated, what decided this for me was Tarquin's entire manner. If he showed emotion, it would be easier to counterargue about Tarquin's motives, but what else you can say about a man who murders his loved ones to protect his reputation and feels nothing?

Why do you assume he feels nothing? By his own words, he clearly did: he stabbed Nale as the price for murdering his best friend. Despite said murder, he was willing to let Nale get away with it. It was only after Nale categorically refused any offer of aid Tarquin could offer that he killed him.

[BroomGuys]

I really don't get the whole "Tarquin killed Nale because of his bruised ego" thing. Keeping Nale alive in the first place was horribly impractical; he only did it out of an emotional attachment to his son. Recall how Tarquin doesn't work with loose cannons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html)? Nale is totally a loose cannon.

In this last strip, Tarquin discovers just how delusional Nale is when he claims he handled Malack without any help. Without Tarquin's help, Malack would simply have killed Nale and fed his soul to Nergal, and more to the point, without Tarquin's help, Tarquin himself would have killed Nale long ago. I see this strip--Tarquin killing Nale--as the moment where Tarquin runs out of excuses to keep him alive from a practical standpoint. The argument Tarquin made about Malack is that it was dumb and petty to kill him, but "foolishly vindictive" is a gross understatement when we're talking about Nale, and it's clear that this sort of behavior was going to continue.

I do think Tarquin has feelings about this; I think he is grieving for the loss of his friend, angry at Nale for killing him, disappointed and sad at how badly he failed to raise his son the way he wanted to, and during the argument, frustrated and exasperated at how unwilling Nale is to listen to reason. But his decision to kill Nale is coldly calculated, I think. He has feelings about it, but he puts them aside to do what is necessary.

(Yes, I do realize that there are alternatives to killing Nale if Tarquin wants to remove him from the game, but A. in narratives, those alternatives never, ever work, and B. Tarquin has a bit of an unfortunate tendency to view killing people as an acceptable solution to a lot of things.)

[F.Harr]

Tarquin is affably, laughably evil, and a serious control freak. I recently read the "Tarquin isn't cold" thread, going 'round and 'round about what this latest comic means. Personally I think it means that whether he genuinely cares for people or not, he has his limits with everyone, and Nale stomped all over that last nerve until he pretty much had to die.

Well, I wouldn't say he cares for anyone not in his circle.

[wolfdreams01]

Tarquin may not be a "classic" control freak, but always being in charge seems to be of paramount importance to him.


That's not at all true. Remember when Roy was a gladiator and Tarquin offered him a job and release from prison? Initially Roy refused unless his demands were met (release of Belkar and two other prisoners). Tarquin got a little cross when he felt like his generousity was being taken advantage of, but ultimately he was willing to compromise. That's not the action of a control freak.

Or how about when Enor and Gannji escaped? It was totally unplanned for and Elan was shocked that Tarquin didn't flip out, but his response was basically "This is really cool!" Even when they defied him right to his face and took a shot at him. Again, not something a control freak would do.

Or when Elan attacked him? Totally did not flip out. There are endless examples. The fact is that compromise is not the mark of a control freak, it's the opposite. You're simply overcomplicating this with your armchair psychology.

The bottom line is that no matter how willing ANY person is to compromise, at some point there's a line that they won't allow people to cross - the point at which the limits of their kindness have been breached. At this point their reaction varies based largely on alignment. When you cross that line with somebody who's Lawful Good (like Roy or Durkon) then crossing that line just results in them getting snippy and denying their help. When you cross that line with somebody who's Lawful Evil (like Tarquin or Malack) it results in almost instant death.

[M.A.D]

I think that Tarquin killed Nale because that is what Nale asked for.

I have two questions for you.

Do you think Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

Do you think Tarquin believed Nale wanted Tarquin to stab him in the chest?

What Nale asked for was to be treated like an adult and an independent individual. (Wow, what a handful. Independent individual. Gotta saying that aloud quickly :D ) Erm.. back to topic, Nale wants nothing from Tarquin, even his protection, so Tarquin caved in to his demand. Or to be more precise, Tarquin gave him exactly what he would have received if Tarquin were to withdraw his protection: death. If Nale weren't going to die now, he would have died later anyway, at the hands of one of Tarquin's colleague. In fact, killing Nale early would spare him of any conflict later had Nale died at someone else's hand.

[Apricot]

(Yes, I do realize that there are alternatives to killing Nale if Tarquin wants to remove him from the game, but A. in narratives, those alternatives never, ever work, and B. Tarquin has a bit of an unfortunate tendency to view killing people as an acceptable solution to a lot of things.)

Unfortunate from the moral perspective, perhaps, but as far as being a dictator is concerned? Killing people is quick, easy, and gets the point across. In his position, killing targets isn't just acceptable. It's often optimal.


That's not at all true. Remember when Roy was a gladiator and Tarquin offered him a job and release from prison? Initially Roy refused unless his demands were met (release of Belkar and two other prisoners). Tarquin got a little cross when he felt like his generousity was being taken advantage of, but ultimately he was willing to compromise. That's not the action of a control freak.

Or how about when Enor and Gannji escaped? It was totally unplanned for and Elan was shocked that Tarquin didn't flip out, but his response was basically "This is really cool!" Even when they defied him right to his face and took a shot at him. Again, not something a control freak would do.

Or when Elan attacked him? Totally did not flip out. There are endless examples. The fact is that compromise is not the mark of a control freak, it's the opposite. You're simply overcomplicating this with your armchair psychology.

The bottom line is that no matter how willing ANY person is to compromise, at some point there's a line that they won't allow people to cross - the point at which the limits of their kindness have been breached. At this point their reaction varies based largely on alignment. When you cross that line with somebody who's Lawful Good (like Roy or Durkon) then crossing that line just results in them getting snippy and denying their help. When you cross that line with somebody who's Lawful Evil (like Tarquin or Malack) it results in almost instant death.

Wonderful point, although I feel obliged to point out that Tarquin was certainly prepared for Elan attacking him, and even found it charming. I completely agree that Tarquin didn't kill Nale just because Nale was refusing to play his games. He just reacted in the Tarquin-appropriate way of handling someone who had just killed his best friend. Nothing about this indicates he was a control freak out of his element. It was just Tarquin in his usual calm, collected, woefully disengaged state. Son rejects all his kindness? Treat him like an ordinary person. Hell, BETTER than an ordinary person. Nale's execution was quick and relatively painless. Can you imagine what he'd have done if, say, Old Man Starshine had been Malack's killer? And to boot, it re-establishes his position within his party. If he'd let anyone else do it, they might start talking about how he was soft. This way, he's at worst a father who foolishly bent over backwards for his kin, but had the self-respect to clean up his own messes. And finally, if he had decided on that route, this gives him the ability to Resurrect Nale at a later date simply by sheathing his bloody dagger (well, it would be bloody if Rich had decided to color it, but I'm reasonably certain you can't perform heart-opening surgery without getting some of the red stuff splashed around). This was anything but senseless violence.

[Scow2]

I strongly do not believe that ANYONE in The Order of The Stick has any actual, diagnosable mental disorders. Any resemblance to mental disease is a coincidence, or product of the genre and simplistic characterization any work has.

This is largely for the same reason there are no developed homo- or bisexual characters in OotS: It's not an area the Giant has any actual experience with or insight into (Even if he knows people with disorders), and by working them into the comic, he'd be running an unacceptable risk of mischaracterizing it and offending those who actually DO struggle with mental disease (Or those who work with people afflicted by personality and mental disorders)

[JackRackham]

An opening that he wouldn't have needed if he hadn't actively helped capture Nale just a few panels prior.

You mean actively capturing the leader of a group that initiated a battle in his colliseum, was trying to kill his other son, his gf and their friends, had previously killed the 'children' of his partner and best friend AND who he suspected of killing his most recent wife? Yes, he intentionally captured that guy. And he was still looking for a way to spare him.

[Skamandros]

You mean actively capturing the leader of a group that initiated a battle in his colliseum,

The battle started when Tarquin had Roy fight Thog:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0788.html


was trying to kill his other son, his gf and their friends,

Tarquin put a bounty out on Elan, threatened to kill Haley, threatened to torture Elan if he didn't submit to decades of psychological abuse, and almost had Roy killed in the arena.

Good thing he captured Nale when he did, because otherwise a reconstituted Linear Guild might have flown out to Girard's pyramid, attacked the Order, and end up killing one of Elan's friends.

Yeah, that would have been bad.


had previously killed the 'children' of his partner and best friend

Mind you, we don't know what happened when Nale was nine years old that motivated him to do that. He may very well have had a legitimate reason to go after Malak.


who he suspected of killing his most recent wife?

Ok, that was reasonable.


And he was still looking for a way to spare him.

I've heard that people have gotten good results from not stabbing people in the chest. He should have tried that.

[Chad30]

First, he put the bounty out on Nale. Second, I'm pretty sure he already tried it the first time Nale refused to work under him. Obviously it didn't work, since Nale failed to stay away or come to Tarquin's way of thinking.

[Skamandros]

First, he put the bounty out on Nale.

He put a bounty out on anyone who looked like Nale.

[Chad30]

Oh, ok. I thought it was just Enor had a picture of Nale, and grabbed Elan without caring that he didn't have a goatee.

[EMichael]

First, he put the bounty out on Nale. Second, I'm pretty sure he already tried it the first time Nale refused to work under him. Obviously it didn't work, since Nale failed to stay away or come to Tarquin's way of thinking.

If you look at the bounty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0715.html) you can see that the reward for the live bounty is more then three times the reward for the dead bounty. My guess is that Malack insisted on posting a bounty on Nale and Tarquin could not say no. (protocols etc.) In that case Tarquin used what power he had in the situation in order to protect his son by insisting on having a large live bounty. He then planned to try to intervene when Nale was brought in.

We actually saw this happen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html) Tarquin knew that Nale had useful information and he was able to leverage that knowledge into convincing Malack into postponing his vengeance. If Nale had cooperated with Tarquin they would have been able to end the feud and Nale could have lived.

[BroomGuys]

If you look at the bounty (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0715.html) you can see that the reward for the live bounty is more then three times the reward for the dead bounty. My guess is that Malack insisted on posting a bounty on Nale and Tarquin could not say no. (protocols etc.) In that case Tarquin used what power he had in the situation in order to protect his son by insisting on having a large live bounty. He then planned to try to intervene when Nale was brought in.

We actually saw this happen here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html) Tarquin knew that Nale had useful information and he was able to leverage that knowledge into convincing Malack into postponing his vengeance. If Nale had cooperated with Tarquin they would have been able to end the feud and Nale could have lived.

If Tarquin wanted the bounty to incentivize bringing Nale in alive, I doubt he got many complaints from Malack, who likely rather wanted to get to kill Nale himself. But while I doubt it was hard to convince Malack to post a much higher reward for "alive," I agree that Tarquin was likely to try to find a way to save Nale.

[Niknokitueu]

The problem with this bit of nuance you want to add to the equation, is that it still gives wiggle room to say that this was anything less than an act of pure, defining evil on Tarquin's part.
I will say that I believe Tarquin felt forced to do what he did.

Nale ranting face: I don't want your nepotism or your charity or your pity! I want NOTHING!
Tarquin sad face to nale angry face: beat panel.
Tarquin neutral face: Is that really how you feel?
Nale angry face: YES!
Tarquin, clearly resigned face: *sigh*
Tarquin neutral face: As you wish, Son.
Tarquin sad face to Nale shocked face: Revealed stab panel.

To me this was not so much an act of pure defining evil than it was the only option left to Tarquin.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

[Paseo H]

Forced to choose between endangering or vouchsafing his evil, narcissistic ambitions? Sure.

[Clyner]

On the subject of the bounty, someone earlier noted that the difference between the "Dead" and "Alive" rewards is the cost of a true resurrection

[Doug Lampert]

On the subject of the bounty, someone earlier noted that the difference between the "Dead" and "Alive" rewards is the cost of a true resurrection

Basically, true resurrection purchased from a caster costs 25,000 GP for the material component and 1,530 GP for the spell. So Tarquin was presumably planning to eat the 1,530 GP casting cost.

But yeah, that's a "Wanted: Alive" poster in a world where magic can restore the dead if you have enough money. Note that Raise Dead or an ordinary Resurrection would be substantially cheaper than the difference in bounties, so you can reasonably assume that a bounty hunter that accidently did kill Nale would have tried to bring him back prior to turning him in for the reward.

[EMichael]

On the subject of the bounty, someone earlier noted that the difference between the "Dead" and "Alive" rewards is the cost of a true resurrection

Perhaps, but powerful magic the OOTS world is not always available for purchase. In fact DStP was based entirely around the team not being able to find a cleric powerful enough to perform the much easier resurrection spell.

Even Redcloak wasn't able to cast 9th level spells at first.

Malack may be able to cast true resurrection, but considering the circumstances I find the idea of Malack resurrecting Nale to be unlikely.

[Nephrahim]

Perhaps, but powerful magic the OOTS world is not always available for purchase. In fact DStP was based entirely around the team not being able to find a cleric powerful enough to perform the much easier resurrection spell.

Even Redcloak wasn't able to cast 9th level spells at first.

Malack may be able to cast true resurrection, but considering the circumstances I find the idea of Malack resurrecting Nale to be unlikely.

Pretty sure Malack was pegged at cleric level 12, which means there's no way he'd be able to cast a true resurrection.

It's possible someone with Tarquin's resources knows someone who can cast a true resurrection spell though, and the fact that the price is EXACTLY that seems to add some credence to that, though you are right, we have only seen one cleric who can cast that spell as far as I know.

Still, it is a big world. It's hard to imagine there's no evil clerics with 9th level spell slots besides redcloak.

[Auldrin]

I didn't see anyone properly articulate this, while a few people obviously tried to make the point, so I want to be clear.

Nale specifically asked that Tarquin stop providing hands-outs, nepotism, charity, or pity. Protection definitely falls under nepotism and probably a few of the others. Nepotism is essentially favouritism among family and as others have said, without favouritism the response to the murder of Malack was absolutely death. There is absolutely no argument to be made that "but that's not what nale meant" because he asked someone who by all rights should be his enemy, to start treating him how he would treat anyone else. As an enemy.

Oh and the true ressurection thing: If there's one epic cleric laying around other than redcloak, there's a good chance Tarquin could find him. As was mentioned much earlier in the comic though, there's a good chance there's not. Maybe an attempt to send a message to bounty hunters.

[Paseo H]

I didn't see anyone properly articulate this, while a few people obviously tried to make the point, so I want to be clear.

Nale specifically asked that Tarquin stop providing hands-outs, nepotism, charity, or pity. Protection definitely falls under nepotism and probably a few of the others. Nepotism is essentially favouritism among family and as others have said, without favouritism the response to the murder of Malack was absolutely death. There is absolutely no argument to be made that "but that's not what nale meant" because he asked someone who by all rights should be his enemy, to start treating him how he would treat anyone else. As an enemy.

Still says it all about where Tarquin's heart is.

[Rakaydos]

Forced to choose between endangering or vouchsafing his evil, narcissistic ambitions? Sure.

Evil ambitions yes. But even just looking at alignment, T isnt just Evil... he's also Lawful. While you're trying to measure him on some absoute Moral Scale, take a look at Tarquin's personal Ethics, how much he upholds his personal Law.

Choose not one path to victory, choose so that all paths lead to victory of some sort. Long term goals come first, meaningless setbacks are meaningless and often amusing, a form of victory itself for the jaded.

He cares for his family and his group within this context, in a lawful but evil way, setting up one son to run the family trade while incorporating the other into his eventual, inevitabe death in a way to preserve his legacy. Nale didnt want any of it, and to preserve the empire -while still- protecting his son, T allowed him to be banished, arranged for the rewards to be higher for a live capture, Intimidated Nale into revealing what he knew about the Gates to prevent Malak from killing him (After, of course, stopping the conflict with his other son and son's girlfriend) and arranging a mission to confince his party that Nale was worth keeping alive.

Except he wasnt. Wasnt able to accomplish his mission, didnt keep the LG team from self destructing, didnt contain himself from calling Tarquin a coward when Tarquin was busy acomplishing his own objectives. Wouldnt stop from announcing his fratricide to the people who most cared about the old vampire. And wouldnt accept Tarquin's last attempt to protect him from his actions.

"I swear, Nale, I dont even know what you want from me anymore." Do you want us to kill you, my son? Because that's what you're acting like.

"Nothing! I want nothing from you! I am my own man, not some cog in your schemes! I dont want your Nepotisim, your Charity or your Pity! I want NOTHING!"

Nothing? No protection from your actions? No helping hand from the family? "Are you SURE?"

YES!

*Sigh* As you wish.

Really, what did you think the price of killing my best friend would be?

[Paseo H]

The difference between Lawful and Chaotic in this case is simply that throwing a bouncy ball bearing a Symbol of Insanity into a group of paladins in order to make them kill each other is not Tarquin's bailiwick.

And sure, Tarquin cared for Nale. But he cares for his plans more.

[Rakaydos]

The difference between Lawful and Chaotic in this case is simply that throwing a bouncy ball bearing a Symbol of Insanity into a group of paladins in order to make them kill each other is not Tarquin's bailiwick.

And sure, Tarquin cared for Nale. But he cares for his plans more.

He cared enough for his family to modify his plans. But he modifies his plans whenever anything of significance happens, so yes, I will agree. I'll just say that Tarquin, as a general rule, prefers to have the best of both worlds. it just wasnt in the cards this time.

[Geordnet]

I agree with those who say that Tarquin killed Nale not because of ego, but because he couldn't keep on pretending that it wasn't inevitable anymore. Nale didn't want his protection, and without that Nale was one round away from death at Laurin's hands at best (at worst, the rest of Tarquin's gang take their time "extracting" vengeance). Even if he tried to pull a fast one and deport him, that didn't work last time: sooner or later Nale will find another reason to get back in his hair. So the only practical choice was to have Nale killed, while his emotions for his son demanded that he do it himself.



I strongly do not believe that ANYONE in The Order of The Stick has any actual, diagnosable mental disorders. Any resemblance to mental disease is a coincidence, or product of the genre and simplistic characterization any work has.
As someone who actually has a diagnosed mental disorder, I would disagree. Rich may not set out to put a character with such-and-such disorder in the comic, but that does not mean that the characters he writes cannot be diagnosed like a regular person.

In this case, I definitely see a bit of High-Functioning Autism/Asperger's in Tarquin and his sons. In Elan, it's most visible through ADHD; in Nale, his penchant for obsession.

In Tarquin, on the other hand, it seems to be a lack of nonverbal expression. (And, presumably, the ability to read that of others. Otherwise, he may have realized Nale was a lost cause earlier, and that trying to integrate him with the group wouldn't work.) In other words, a lack of sympathy or empathy. I know firsthand that this doesn't prevent one from having loyalties (be it with family or colleagues) but it does make it easier to take "the practical solution" in situations like this.

He may not show it, but I wouldn't doubt that Tarquin's feeling rather broken up inside. :smallfrown:

[quasit]

Forced to choose between endangering or vouchsafing his evil, narcissistic ambitions? Sure.

Not the first one that felt obliged to kill a familiar for that "plan" of his in this story, thought.

[Cifer]

I will say that I believe Tarquin felt forced to do what he did.

Nale ranting face: I don't want your nepotism or your charity or your pity! I want NOTHING!
Tarquin sad face to nale angry face: beat panel.
Tarquin neutral face: Is that really how you feel?
Nale angry face: YES!
Tarquin, clearly resigned face: *sigh*
Tarquin neutral face: As you wish, Son.
Tarquin sad face to Nale shocked face: Revealed stab panel.

To me this was not so much an act of pure defining evil than it was the only option left to Tarquin.

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu
As someone who doesn't wear his heart on his sleeves either, I'd agree with this interpretation. It's not that Tarquin doesn't feel emotions, but that he doesn't show them - and at that point, yes, he ran out of options.


In sum, I'd say that Tarquin didn't commit an evil act here, but stopped committing one: protecting his mass-murdering son for no reason but nepotism.
(And obviously, this doesn't make him much less evil...)

[The Pilgrim]

Forced to choose between endangering or vouchsafing his evil, narcissistic ambitions? Sure.

Well, we finally have Tarquin stating clearly why he killed Nale.

Revenge? Self-Defense? Justice?

Nah

Nale was just a plot element that had outlived his uselfuness. He was stealing too much screen time from Tarquin.

And yeah, Tarquin is SO torn by the HARD decission of slaying his son...

[masamune1]

I agree with those who say that Tarquin killed Nale not because of ego, but because he couldn't keep on pretending that it wasn't inevitable anymore. Nale didn't want his protection, and without that Nale was one round away from death at Laurin's hands at best (at worst, the rest of Tarquin's gang take their time "extracting" vengeance). Even if he tried to pull a fast one and deport him, that didn't work last time: sooner or later Nale will find another reason to get back in his hair. So the only practical choice was to have Nale killed, while his emotions for his son demanded that he do it himself.



As someone who actually has a diagnosed mental disorder, I would disagree. Rich may not set out to put a character with such-and-such disorder in the comic, but that does not mean that the characters he writes cannot be diagnosed like a regular person.

In this case, I definitely see a bit of High-Functioning Autism/Asperger's in Tarquin and his sons. In Elan, it's most visible through ADHD; in Nale, his penchant for obsession.

In Tarquin, on the other hand, it seems to be a lack of nonverbal expression. (And, presumably, the ability to read that of others. Otherwise, he may have realized Nale was a lost cause earlier, and that trying to integrate him with the group wouldn't work.) In other words, a lack of sympathy or empathy. I know firsthand that this doesn't prevent one from having loyalties (be it with family or colleagues) but it does make it easier to take "the practical solution" in situations like this.

He may not show it, but I wouldn't doubt that Tarquin's feeling rather broken up inside. :smallfrown:

Aspergers and ADHD are not related. And Elan does not have ADHD; he just has a childish personality. HE might have Aspergers, but that is unlikely as well. One of the key symptoms of Aspergers is trouble making friends or being with people- none of these three have that problem. They all get on fine with others- even psychos like Tarquin and Nale. All three of them also understand jokes, something else a person with Aspergers would have trouble with. Its possible that one of them has low-level Aspergers, but in that case they would be loners who are decent in social situations and have no real problem with understanding others.

A person with Aspergers does not lack empathy. If fact they tend to have an abundance of empathy. What they lack is cognitive empathy, the ability to read emotions on faces and understand social situations. But they aren't going to torture or kill people because of that; if they recognise someone is suffering they will absolutely feel for them.

Tarquin doesn't have those problems. He easily enters into social situations and is a master of manipulating others. He just has problem with emotional and compassionate empathy; he clearly sees when someone is upset; he just has trouble understanding the "why". Someone with Aspergers would have the opposite problem- they would have trouble seeing that a person is upset in the first place, but when they did would empathise immediately.

Tarquin knows Nale and Elan are upset- he just doesn't give a damn and wonders what their problem is. There is a word for that- psychopath. He is superficially charming, highly manipulative, utterly remorseless, has a grandiose sense of his own self worth, emotionally shallow, excuses for absolutely every horrible thing he does....He even has the string of short-lived marriages. He is the opposite of Aspergers.

And ADHD has symptoms like mood swings, depression, substance abuse, trouble sleeping and staying awake....That isn't Elan. He has a few things in common with it (like being easily distracted and daydreaming) but not enough and not seriously enough. Elan is just...Elan.

[Geordnet]

Aspergers and ADHD are not related.
Yes they are. They're both part of the Autism spectrum.



One of the key symptoms of Aspergers is trouble making friends or being with people- none of these three have that problem. They all get on fine with others- even psychos like Tarquin and Nale.
Then I don't think you really understand what Aspergers means. It's not that there's anything getting in the way of getting along with people, it's that there's no natural drive to seek social interaction. Once interaction is engaged, simple lack of practice and unusual obsessions/interests may make conversation awkward to say the least; but Aspergers itself does not prevent one from learning how to improve.



All three of them also understand jokes, something else a person with Aspergers would have trouble with.
I have Aspergers, yet I 'get' jokes just fine. By no means is that a universal symptom.

Besides, doesn't Elan have problems with sarcasm? :smallconfused:



Its possible that one of them has low-level Aspergers, but in that case they would be loners who are decent in social situations and have no real problem with understanding others.
Now you're making assumptions.



A person with Aspergers does not lack empathy. If fact they tend to have an abundance of empathy. What they lack is cognitive empathy, the ability to read emotions on faces and understand social situations. But they aren't going to torture or kill people because of that; if they recognise someone is suffering they will absolutely feel for them.
For the purposes of this discussion, whenever I say "empathy" I mean "ability to read the emotions of others", and whenever I say "sympathy" I mean "feeling emotions for or with others". Neither is necessary for strong morals, as I can personally testify.

And I never said this would lead to them torturing or killing, just that this would explain Tarquin's apparent emotionlessness (although it wouldn't make the former any harder). Besides, who says that Tarquin doesn't have more than one mental disorder? :smalltongue:

(Actually, that would make some sense: Elan got Tarquin's Aspergers, while Nale got the other disorders. Probably, as you mentioned later on, Psychopathy.)



Tarquin doesn't have those problems. He easily enters into social situations and is a master of manipulating others.
A skill honed, perhaps; likely helped by his lack of sympathy.

He just has problem with emotional and compassionate empathy; he clearly sees when someone is upset; he just has trouble understanding the "why".



Someone with Aspergers would have the opposite problem- they would have trouble seeing that a person is upset in the first place, but when they did would empathise immediately.
Then I guess I'd better get a re-diagnosis, since that isn't what I've got. (Although it's close, I'll admit.)



And ADHD has symptoms like mood swings, depression, substance abuse, trouble sleeping and staying awake....That isn't Elan. He has a few things in common with it (like being easily distracted and daydreaming) but not enough and not seriously enough. Elan is just...Elan.
Trouble sleeping? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0336.html)

As for the rest, I again can tell you from firsthand experience that not all symptoms are universal. :smalltongue:

[masamune1]

Yes they are. They're both part of the Autism spectrum.

No they aren't. Aspergers is an autistic disorder (until May 2013, when it was officially dropped from the DSM-5, though unofficially that doesn't mean other psychiatrists and psychologists have to agree) and ADHD is a psychiatric disorder. The Autistic Spectrum only covers Autism, Aspergers and Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS)- which covers different things, but not ADHD.


Then I don't think you really understand what Aspergers means. It's not that there's anything getting in the way of getting along with people, it's that there's no natural drive to seek social interaction. Once interaction is engaged, simple lack of practice and unusual obsessions/interests may make conversation awkward to say the least; but Aspergers itself does not prevent one from learning how to improve.

A person with Aspergers does not lack a drive to seek social interaction. Many / most desire it very much. They just are usually very clumsy with it and have trouble understanding social cues (say, telling when somebody is bored). A lack of desire for social interaction is called Schizoid Personality Disorder, which has some similarities but is a very distinct diagnosis. Its not uncommon for someone with Aspergers to develop Schizoid-like traits after so many attempts at making friends fail, but they are different.

Both Aspergers and Schizoid subjects can learn to improve, but unless the former only has low-level Aspergers its not looking good. The latter is crippled mainly by that their lack of desire for companionship might mean that they don't see this as a problem; again, low-level schizoids are a bit more likely to change.


I have Aspergers, yet I 'get' jokes just fine. By no means is that a universal symptom.

Besides, doesn't Elan have problems with sarcasm? :smallconfused:

Then you might just have mild Aspergers. Its possible that Tarquin and Elan do too (and less likely, Nale) but that would have naught to do with Tarquin offing his kid, or the way he treated or failed to understand him. Not even normal Aspergers (which has much more obvious symptoms, like "not-getting-jokes", or going into a monologue about things nobody else cares about) would explain that.

Elan only has problem with sarcasm because he is in a world of his own. Someone with Aspergers / Autism (normal-range) would find sarcasm confusing and would try and work out what the person meant, or take things too literally. Elan I think just lives too much in a world of his own, and is a bit naïve and innocently childish.


Now you're making assumptions.

Well, maybe more of a generalization. Withdrawn.


For the purposes of this discussion, whenever I say "empathy" I mean "ability to read the emotions of others", and whenever I say "sympathy" I mean "feeling emotions for or with others". Neither is necessary for strong morals, as I can personally testify.

And I never said this would lead to them torturing or killing, just that this would explain Tarquin's apparent emotionlessness (although it wouldn't make the former any harder). Besides, who says that Tarquin doesn't have more than one mental disorder? :smalltongue:

(Actually, that would make some sense: Elan got Tarquin's Aspergers, while Nale got the other disorders. Probably, as you mentioned later on, Psychopathy.)

"Empathy" is a broad term but if you want to use those words that way, somebody with Aspergers has poor empathy but much sympathy, while someone with psychopathy has good empathy but very little sympathy.

The main symptoms of Aspergers have to do with social interaction, and repetitive and unusual hobbies or interests, (such as, say, collecting and cataloguing sports memorabilia, but having zero interest in sports). Plus they often have little real interest in anything to do with fiction or stories (which is a pretty big score against any of these three being Aspergers) and are usually very, very routine focused.

I'd say Nale is a sociopath- he may have been born with some psychopathic traits, but mch of his behaviour stems from his upbringing. He also has a fuller range of emotions. A psychopath is someone who fails to develop empathy from an early age and as a consequence fails to develop their emotions (or someone who fails to develop their emotions and as a consequence, fails to develop their empathy). I don't see many Aspergers traits in Elan or Tarquin, and its a very tricky thing to diagnose, harder still in adulthood. Especially since it has many things in common with various other conditions.


A skill honed, perhaps; likely helped by his lack of sympathy.

But someone with Aspergers doesn't really have much problem with sympathy, and are hardly ever manipulative. They have trouble reading emotions.


Then I guess I'd better get a re-diagnosis, since that isn't what I've got. (Although it's close, I'll admit.)



As for the rest, I again can tell you from firsthand experience that not all symptoms are universal. :smalltongue:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695286/


Initial symptoms of the disorder can be observed after the third year of life. Because it is often difficult to distinguish the syndrome from differential diagnoses, Asperger’s syndrome should be diagnosed by a doctor specializing in psychiatry and psychotherapy or, in children, by a child and adolescent psychiatrist.

In addition to the clinical psychiatric examination, some questionnaire approaches are available that may be used for diagnostic purposes. The Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA) is an instrument that was developed especially for diagnosing Asperger’s syndrome in adults (5). It entails two screening methods, the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the Empathy Quotient (EQ), as well as extended DSM-IV criteria (box 2).


Go to:

Box 2.


DSM-IV extensions after Adult Asperger Assessment (AAA) (modified)

Ad A) Difficulties in understanding social situations and other people’s thoughts and feelings

Ad B) Tendency to think of issues as being black and white, rather than considering multiple perspectives in a flexible way

Additionally: Qualitative impairments in verbal or nonverbal communication with at least three of the following symptoms:
1.
Tendency to turn any conversation back on to self or own topic of interest

2.
Marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others. Cannot see the point of superficial social contact, niceties, or passing time with others, unless there is a clear discussion point/debate or activity.

3.
Pedantic style of speaking, inclusion of too much detail

4.
Inability to recognize when the listener is interested or bored

5.
Frequent tendency to say things without considering the emotional impact on the listener


Additionally: Impairment in at least one of the criteria relating to childhood imagination:
1.
Lack of varied, spontaneous make believe play appropriate to developmental level

2.
Inability to tell, write or generate spontaneous, unscripted or unplagiarized fiction

3.
Either lack of interest in fiction (written, or drama) appropriate to developmental level or interest in fiction is restricted to its possible basis in fact (e.g. science fiction, history, technical aspects of film)



Key messages.
•
The core symptoms of Asperger’s syndrome include reduced socioemotional empathy, special interests, and ritualized behavior.

•
Asperger’s syndrome can be diagnosed in adulthood by using thorough anamnesis and heteroanamnesis, as well as clinical-psychiatric examination.

•
The origin of Asperger’s syndrome is multifactorial; especially deficits in the theory of mind, central coherence, and executive functions are noted.

•
Symptom-oriented pharmacological treatment and psychotherapy provide an effective therapeutic approach.

•
Not every case of Asperger’s syndrome has disease status and requires treatment.

[wolfdreams01]

Well, we finally have Tarquin stating clearly why he killed Nale.

Revenge? Self-Defense? Justice?

Nah

Nale was just a plot element that had outlived his uselfuness. He was stealing too much screen time from Tarquin.

And yeah, Tarquin is SO torn by the HARD decission of slaying his son...

Are we even reading the same comic here? This is the most simple-minded interpretation I can imagine of Tarquin's behavior. When is ANYTHING Tarquin says supposed to get taken at face value? Do you seriously think Tarquin is stupid enough to break down and get all emotional about his dead son right in front of Laurin? Or confess (again, IN FRONT OF LAURIN) that he did this to spare Nale from torture at the hands of his team?

In my opinion, the only thing we can trust that comes out of Tarquin's mouth are the things he says when he has absolutely no incentive to lie. In other words, the way he behaves when he first meets Elan (because he doesn't have enough information on Elan yet to fit him into his plans) and the way he behaves when he is talking to Nale (because it is disadvantageous to protect him, yet he tries anyway).

[wolfdreams01]

"Empathy" is a broad term but if you want to use those words that way, somebody with Aspergers has poor empathy but much sympathy, while someone with psychopathy has good empathy but very little sympathy.

But someone with Aspergers doesn't really have much problem with sympathy, and are hardly ever manipulative. They have trouble reading emotions.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695286/


Indeed. In fact, I've heard some theories suggesting that Asperger's and Psychopathy are simply opposite ends of the empathy spectrum. A person with Asperger's has limited cognitive empathy but normal affective empathy - in other words, he cares what other people are feeling, but cannot understand it properly. A psychopath has limited/no affective empathy but normal cognitive empathy - they understand what other people are feeling, but they just don't care.

Functionally, sociopaths are more "limited" versions of the psychopath (perhaps because their lack of affective empathy was shaped by environment rather than genetics). Sociopaths have relatively normal affective empathy for the people they are loyal to, but none for people outside of their in-group. In other words, they behave like normal people when interacting with their friends but like psychopaths to anybody who is a stranger to them.

Oddly enough, sociopaths often have some problems with cognitive empathy as well. Perhaps because the effect of the environment that warped their affective empathy also gave them a different range of emotional responses (though that is speculative on my part).

[The Pilgrim]

Do you seriously think Tarquin is stupid enough to break down and get all emotional about his dead son right in front of Laurin? Or confess (again, IN FRONT OF LAURIN) that he did this to spare Nale from torture at the hands of his team?

Why would Tarquin get all emotional about his dead son when he has felt nothing killing him?

Why would Tarquin confess that he killed Nale to spare him from torture at the hands of his team, when he has not?


In my opinion, the only thing we can trust that comes out of Tarquin's mouth are the things he says when he has absolutely no incentive to lie. In other words, the way he behaves when he first meets Elan (because he doesn't have enough information on Elan yet to fit him into his plans) and the way he behaves when he is talking to Nale (because it is disadvantageous to protect him, yet he tries anyway).

That's funny, because Tarquin had all the incentives to lie to Elan the first time they meet, and in fact, what Tarquin told Elan about his backstory (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html) was not exactly the truth (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html)

But, hey, nice try.

[Chad30]

Well, we finally have Tarquin stating clearly why he killed Nale.

Revenge? Self-Defense? Justice?

Nah

Nale was just a plot element that had outlived his uselfuness. He was stealing too much screen time from Tarquin.

And yeah, Tarquin is SO torn by the HARD decission of slaying his son...

Yeah, I didn't expect Tarquin to act this way after killing Nale. It's kind of odd that I think Tarquin isn't showing as much regret as I expected, and Elan is showing more than I expected. I guess the lack of feeling Tarquin is showing makes Elan feel more.

[Skamandros]

I agree with those who say that Tarquin killed Nale not because of ego, but because he couldn't keep on pretending that it wasn't inevitable anymore. Nale didn't want his protection, and without that Nale was one round away from death at Laurin's hands at best (at worst, the rest of Tarquin's gang take their time "extracting" vengeance).

I think that last scenario was exactly what Nale was hoping for. Narratively speaking, there's no chance Nale would actually die in a dungeon, and he'd probably only be tortured for two pages at the very most.

[veti]

Are we even reading the same comic here? This is the most simple-minded interpretation I can imagine of Tarquin's behavior. When is ANYTHING Tarquin says supposed to get taken at face value? Do you seriously think Tarquin is stupid enough to break down and get all emotional about his dead son right in front of Laurin? Or confess (again, IN FRONT OF LAURIN) that he did this to spare Nale from torture at the hands of his team?

So your theory is that Tarquin is all cut up inside, just hiding it (really, really well, from one of his best friends)? And this theory is based on - what, exactly?

He's not only "not breaking down" - as far as I can see, he shows absolutely no sign, by word or expression, of feeling any emotion beyond his customary disdain. "Laurin, please. Give them a moment for some melodrama." - if he were at all emotional, what would it have cost him to put an exclamation mark in there, or at least show his eyebrows while he speaks? But no, he's as cold as a dead frog in a glacier. On Pluto.

[Elanorea]

I don't get all the people who claim that this is the act that "proves" that Tarquin is evil, heartless or whatever. Like, hello? We already knew he was evil and heartless. Remember when he burned all those slaves alive just to make a pretty lightshow? And remember his reaction when Elan was predictably upset by it?

It's been obvious for a while that he doesn't really care about people aside from the role they play in his grand narrative. I don't think killing Nale revealed anything surprising about Tarquin's character - it was perfectly in line with what we knew of him beforehand, and far from the evilest act he's committed.