Tarquin as a frustrated parent.

[Dark Matter]

Tarquin doesn't need to be a great (or terrible) military/political leader in order to suck at dealing with his sons.

Trying to mold Elan into a great commander who will lead a group of rebels against Tarquin is like trying to nail jello to a wall. It's a bad idea that only a parent could love, but he's not going to give up on it.

Elan *will* be successful (by Tarquin's standards no less), Elan *will* be a leader, Elan *will* be the *only* one who takes over Tarquin's legacy.

All previous failures at this plan are the fault of not enough determination, or the child's friends, or society, or something other than the parent's ideas.

There's lots of parents out there like that. They're not normally the crazed monsters Tarquin is, but I have some sympathy for him and his situation recognize and feel schadenfreude at his situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

[tulebast]

I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly about Tarquin. There are not very many parents out there like Tarquin because he's a sociopathic abuser (and I am willing to wager that most parents are not sociopathic abusers).

We know he's sociopathic because he can't seem to understand or empathize with the feelings of others. As is typical of sociopathic behavior, he lacks any true ability to understand the consequences to others or the capacity to care beyond their direct influence upon his own paradigm. [Not to mention the manipulative behavior, the narcissism, the thrill seeking, etc.]

We know he's an abuser because he literally makes the classic abuser statement in the 12th Panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html). Beyond that, there are other examples in the comics, but really that "you made me do it" seals the deal on that.

Make no mistake, Tarquin does not care about Elan, at all, EXCEPT for what Elan can do to fulfill Tarquin's legacy/narrative. He's not setting up a legacy to be carried on by his son (either one), because his son(s) is the means to achieving his own legacy. He doesn't care what happens to Elan afterwards.

Save your sympathy/schadenfreude/whatever for Nale, who was turned into a monster by his unloving upbringing, or Malick who despite being an evil vampire was still less of a monster than Tarquin is, or Red Cloak who is perhaps the most sympathetic villain in this entire story (and the only villain, other that Varsuvius, that I can hope to find redemption), or even Kubota who, while evil, still had something approximating a noble (albeit horribly misguided) intention. No, Tarquin is the second most vile thing Rich has created in this story (overshadowed in horror only by Xykon himself). Nothing Rich does to Tarquin can be a good enough end punishment for the man. Nothing.

[NerdyKris]

I don't think he's a "frustrated parent". He's straight up abusive. He's not trying to mold Elan and not seeing where he's failing. He's going to cut off his hand because he's not doing what he's told. He's an abusive parent. He's the parent beating their son for not making the goal in football. Or beating them for not listening to them. There's no sympathy for his frustration here, because his frustration is completely unhinged from reality. It's like being frustrated that your child is a girl and not a boy. That's not a valid reason to be mad at them.

[Gift Jeraff]

He reminds me of a pageant parent.

[NerdyKris]

He reminds me of a pageant parent.

Pageant parents still don't murder one child and then threaten to cut the hand off the other while murdering his friends.

[Composer99]

If I were to compare Tarquin to a real-life parent, it would be similar to a "hockey parent" taken to a crazed, abusive extreme of the stereotype - and a bit beyond the extreme, for good measure.

[Dark Matter]

Make no mistake, Tarquin does not care about Elan, at all, EXCEPT for what Elan can do to fulfill Tarquin's legacy/narrative. He's not setting up a legacy to be carried on by his son (either one), because his son(s) is the means to achieving his own legacy. He doesn't care what happens to Elan afterwards.Interesting points, what he was going to do with his empire (i.e. Malack) fits this pattern.


Save your sympathy/schadenfreude/whatever for Nale, who was turned into a monster by his unloving upbringing...No. Nale gets no sympathy from me for the same reason I never call Belkar "innocent" even if he didn't commit a particular murder.

Nale was a monster from day one (below, left side, 2nd row from the bottom) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html

I think the Giant said that Nale was less powerful than Xykon, but not less evil.


Nothing Rich does to Tarquin can be a good enough end punishment for the man. Nothing.Soul Binding would be a good start, and that Psion has Warp. We can hope.

RE: Tarquin as abusive
Yep. Definitely in it for himself... but then that's the problem with this mind set.

[SaintRidley]

Nale was a monster from day one (below, left side, 2nd row from the bottom) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html


An indication that Nale was not particularly fond of Elan, possibly jealous, and certainly felt some nascent degree of rivalry. Not an indication that he was evil as a baby. Babies aren't evil,* at least in this comic (the idea is repellent both to Rich and a good number of other people).

*Exceptions made for like, undead and demonic babies and such, due to supernatural origins.

[Snails]

Without respect, a parent's love can easily boil down to nothing but ambition and narcissism. Abuse and evil is only a stone's throw away from there. In the real world, parents who treat their own children or spouse more brutally then they would ever dare treat a friend, acquaintance, or stranger are far from rare.

Tarquin only respects those who play by his rules.

[Harbinger]

Nale was a monster from day one (below, left side, 2nd row from the bottom) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html

I think the Giant said that Nale was less powerful than Xykon, but not less evil.


Nale was a baby when he did that. That hardly makes him a "monster from day one". Tarquin made Nale what he is. While it is true that Nale was a free willed person and responsible for his own actions, a large part of the blame for why he choose to do what he did rests on Tarquin.

I actually disagree with the Giant on Nale being as evil as Xykon. Nale, unlike Xykon, is actually capable of love and empathy. The only character's I would say are equal to Tarquin in terms of evil are Tarquin and maybe Malack. Besides, even if Nale is as evil as Xykon, he certainly has more sympathetic motivations for being that way.

[NerdyKris]

Nale was a monster from day one (below, left side, 2nd row from the bottom) http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html


This may come as a surprise to those without kids, but babies will hit eachother. A lot. They don't understand the concept of other people existing or feeling anything other than what they're feeling. They have no empathy. That has to be learned. We saw one joke about Nale hitting his brother on the head as a 1 year old. By that logic, I'm a murderous monster for biting my twin brother as a five year old. (I'm pretty sure I'm not)

Hitting your brother on the head with a rattle is pretty standard fare for an infant.

[Bulldog Psion]

Here's a thought. Nale turned out the way he did because of Tarquin's upbringing.

What was Tarquin's father or mother (or both) like for him to turn out this way? :smalleek:

[Snails]

Besides, even if Nale is as evil as Xykon, he certainly has more sympathetic motivations for being that way.

On that point I agree. In the end, I did pity Nale, even if a good clean murdering is a better fate than he deserved.

[Snails]

Here's a thought. Nale turned out the way he did because of Tarquin's upbringing.

What was Tarquin's father or mother (or both) like for him to turn out this way? :smalleek:

My guesses....
(1) Tarquin was amused by Nale hitting his brother, and a minor natural rare behavior grew to a dire habit with his father's encouragement.
(2) Tarquin preferred the "strong" son, and thus specifically chose Nale in the divorce.
(3) Tarquin, sensing Nale's natural Chaotic tendencies, murdered Nale's pet puppy in front of him, to make a point.
(4) As Nale was growing up, the lessons included murdering entire families to eliminate possible influences from the "wrong" sort of people.

I think that is quite sufficient.

[AKA_Bait]

Not to defend Tarquin, but the loss of a hand in the OotS verse (or any D&D world) isn't as bad as it is in the real world because of spells like regeneration.

[The Fury]

Not to defend Tarquin, but the loss of a hand in the OotS verse (or any D&D world) isn't as bad as it is in the real world because of spells like regeneration.

Yeah, it's something that Elan would get better from but that doesn't make it not cruel. There's also something really cold about Tarquin juxtaposing the murder of all of Elan's friends with an Empire Strikes Back reference.

[AKA_Bait]

Oh, I'm not saying Tarquin is anything but a monster. I just have a thing about pointing out that the loss of limbs and such isn't quite as awful a thing to do in a D&D world as it is in RL.

[NerdyKris]

Not to defend Tarquin, but the loss of a hand in the OotS verse (or any D&D world) isn't as bad as it is in the real world because of spells like regeneration.

To be fair though, in the real world, so is pulling off someone's fingernails or breaking a finger. Extremely painful, relatively easy to heal from, but still cruel and torturous.

[Dark Matter]

An indication that Nale was not particularly fond of Elan, possibly jealous, and certainly felt some nascent degree of rivalry. Not an indication that he was evil as a baby. Babies aren't evil,* at least in this comic (the idea is repellent both to Rich and a good number of other people).

*Exceptions made for like, undead and demonic babies and such, due to supernatural origins.Babies and small children default to innocent, with the exception being author's choice with deliberate author information saying otherwise.

And that's what we're looking at. A baby with an evil smirk and evil goatee? The smirk might be handwaveable, the goatee is not. :smallwink:

Nale crippled his brother deliberately. :smalleek:

(And yes, I've had several kids. They can't get goatees until they're teens, and also yes, they can grow out of them.)

Xykon was evil at the age of four, Nale when he was a few months old (although granted, both of them might have been evil earlier).

As for Nale being evil(er) with T's encouragement, that's possible. Even with SOD, I simply can't tell if Xykon got worse as he got older. But presumably Nale's and Elan's primary care giver as babies was their CG mom. Ignoring that it's hard to picture Tarquin changing diapers, and war/murder was his day-job even then and the strip shows mom was around and dad isn't shown.

One hopes Tarquin picked the eviler son (who btw was LE, not CE), but it could just as easily have been chance or mom who picked. I can easily picture Tarquin as arrogant enough to think he could turn either of his sons into a LE ideal.

[Nilan8888]

The most ironic thing is that if you were to pull Tarquin through the fourth wall and show him Rich's story, switching out his name and a couple of things he's said to make his own character unrecognizable to himself on surface comparison, he'd probably turn to you and say "man, that guy in charge is some jerk, huh?"

[David Argall]

We know he's an abuser because he literally makes the classic abuser statement in the 12th Panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html).
That statement is made by approximately 100% of parents, generally hundreds of times. That it is a common excuse is because it is also a common reason. You make rules because you must if the brat is to survive and prosper, and if you have done your job properly, it is entirely his fault for any violations of the rules and he is making you punish him.



Make no mistake, Tarquin does not care about Elan, at all, EXCEPT for what Elan can do to fulfill Tarquin's legacy/narrative. He's not setting up a legacy to be carried on by his son (either one), because his son(s) is the means to achieving his own legacy. He doesn't care what happens to Elan afterwards.
Tarquin loves his boy/s. It may be a perverted love by our view, but he is willing to just about anythings to aid them. Of course, he has a "unique" view of what that aid is, but a lot of parents do not agree with the child about what is needed.

Save your sympathy/schadenfreude/whatever for Nale, who was turned into a monster by his unloving upbringing,[/QUOTE]
In fact we know about zero about Nale's upbringing. [I have thought the reverse, that Tarquin was very indulgent and let him get away with murder {quite possibly literally}, which is why he got so upset when anybody told him no. They were violating his "rights".] And we do have to remember that all development theories are frequently wrong in the individual case. No matter how Nale was raised, he could have ended up as Nale.

[NerdyKris]

Tarquin loves his boy/s. It may be a perverted love by our view, but he is willing to just about anythings to aid them. Of course, he has a "unique" view of what that aid is, but a lot of parents do not agree with the child about what is needed.

What? No. It is not a "perverted love". If he was willing to do just about anything to aid them, he would have let Nale leave the area alive. Instead, he murdered him because he was becoming an annoyance.

He isn't doing whatever he can to aid Elan, because he's ignoring Elan's desire not to have his friend's killed. He is doing what he can to aid HIS desires. Not his children's.

[DaggerPen]

I don't think Tarquin sat around thinking, "Ha ha! I am fooling them into thinking I love my family! I am so clever!" I think he thought that he really loved his family, right up until the point where loving his family conflicted with him being in total control. And then both he and the readers got to see which one of the two really mattered to him.

I feel like this quote is relevant to this discussion.

[Snails]

Tarquin loves his boy/s. It may be a perverted love by our view, but he is willing to just about anythings to aid them. Of course, he has a "unique" view of what that aid is, but a lot of parents do not agree with the child about what is needed.

The lack of a consensus opinion within the family which requires a parent to step forth and take full responsibility for a minor child is not an important issue here. Nor is it even relevant.

The root cause of Tarquin's perversity is a complete failure to be hold an iota of respect for anyone who disagrees with him. With respect to his children, he simply does not care the smallest whit about the opinions of his adult children regarding the course of their own lives.

To put it bluntly, Tarquin is perfectly willing to rape his own children, holding out the hope they will thank him for the repeated violations before he is "forced" to escalate to lethal means. This Tarquin would call love. It so happens that Tarquin's brand of rape employed specifically against his sons does not involve sex, but it does involve every other kind of violence.

[Porthos]

I don't think Tarquin sat around thinking, "Ha ha! I am fooling them into thinking I love my family! I am so clever!" I think he thought that he really loved his family, right up until the point where loving his family conflicted with him being in total control. And then both he and the readers got to see which one of the two really mattered to him.
I feel like this quote is relevant to this discussion.

What would "No One Denies Me" be in Latin, anyway? Might make for a good family motto. :smallamused:

[AgentofOdd]

The lack of a consensus opinion within the family which requires a parent to step forth and take full responsibility for a minor child is not an important issue here. Nor is it even relevant.

The root cause of Tarquin's perversity is a complete failure to be hold an iota of respect for anyone who disagrees with him. With respect to his children, he simply does not care the smallest whit about the opinions of his adult children regarding the course of their own lives.Lest I'm mistaken, I don't think David is saying Tarquin's actions have any similarities to a parent-minor relationship in his first paragraph. He's just saying that the line "you forced me to do this" isn't automatically a sign of an abusive relationship since it's used too often. One can certainly find relatively uncontroversial times such a line could be uttered. When cutting up a teen's credit card, or taking away their gaming system, that short of thing.

[HeeJay]

That statement is made by approximately 100% of parents, generally hundreds of times. That it is a common excuse is because it is also a common reason. You make rules because you must if the brat is to survive and prosper, and if you have done your job properly, it is entirely his fault for any violations of the rules and he is making you punish him.

Count me out of the "100% of parents", I would never say that.

I could say: "I told you I would do this if you didn't behave."
I would never say: "You forced me to do this."

It's a subtle, but real and important difference.



Tarquin loves his boy/s. It may be a perverted love by our view, but he is willing to just about anythings to aid them. Of course, he has a "unique" view of what that aid is, but a lot of parents do not agree with the child about what is needed.

You forgot one very, very, very important thing:

Nale was an adult.

Treating your twenty-something son as if he were five is not parenting. It can't be parenting. It's pure abuse.

[SaintRidley]

Also, Tarquin clearly thinks he loves his sons. His actions, however, show that he does no such thing and his thinking on that subject has as much basis in reality as Xykon's love and affection for small, furry animals.



What would "No One Denies Me" be in Latin, anyway? Might make for a good family motto. :smallamused:

Nemo me denegat.

[David Argall]

You forgot one very, very, very important thing:

Nale was an adult.

He was also Tarquin's child, which means he is still 5 when he is 50. Tarquin is not the least unusual in thinking this.

[AgentofOdd]

What? No. It is not a "perverted love". If he was willing to do just about anything to aid them, he would have let Nale leave the area alive. Instead, he murdered him because he was becoming an annoyance.I wonder if in Tarquin's mind he saw himself as finally respecting Nale as a grown man and treating him as such.
He isn't doing whatever he can to aid Elan, because he's ignoring Elan's desire not to have his friend's killed. He is doing what he can to aid HIS desires. Not his children's.Here, I suspect Tarquin is thinking he has to help Elan reach his full potential. If he needs to tear down (what he believes to be) a negative environment his badly raised son is in then so be it.

For better or for worse, I'm all too familiar with the far too controlling style of parenting (though not personally and the real life examples aren't so bloody of course). Are these controlling parents acting out of love? They believe so. Is it wrong? Definitely. Can their actions then be labeled a twisted or perverted love? I suppose it depends if you believe a person can love someone while deeply hurting them. Unfortunately, I'd say yes, such a thing is all too common.

[Ridureyu]

He was also Tarquin's child, which means he is still 5 when he is 50. Tarquin is not the least unusual in thinking this.

Wow. Your arguments have totally proven to me that Tarquin absolutely loved the son he brutally murdered over his ego. And he certainly loves the other son whom he wants to brutally torture over his ego.

[oppyu]

He was also Tarquin's child, which means he is still 5 when he is 50. Tarquin is not the least unusual in thinking this.
My Mum treats me like I'm younger than I really am as well. However, she is yet to gather her old adventuring party in a bid to murder my friends because I'm not applying myself at university, and I thank her for that. :smalltongue:

[AKA_Bait]

I wonder if in Tarquin's mind he saw himself as finally respecting Nale as a grown man and treating him as such.

That's an interesting take. Nale did tell him, essentially, that he no longer wanted special treatment. So, Tarquin treated him just like he would any other person who had opposed him.

That said, I don't really think we can say it translated into respecting Nale, considering Tarquin's dismissive tone as he stabbed him.

[Snails]

Lest I'm mistaken, I don't think David is saying Tarquin's actions have any similarities to a parent-minor relationship in his first paragraph. He's just saying that the line "you forced me to do this" isn't automatically a sign of an abusive relationship since it's used too often. One can certainly find relatively uncontroversial times such a line could be uttered. When cutting up a teen's credit card, or taking away their gaming system, that short of thing.

Agreed.

But let's step back and look at the larger picture. The very nature of an abusive relationship is to take means that are justifiable in one context and apply them in an inappropriate context. That is why it is an abusive relationship, because it bears a superficial relationship to a healthy non-perverse relationship while getting important details horribly wrong.

[Snails]

He was also Tarquin's child, which means he is still 5 when he is 50. Tarquin is not the least unusual in thinking this.

Very narrowly speaking, yes. Non-perverse parents recognize see their 23-year-old child is both their "little boy" AND a full grown adult with a life of their own. Tarquin is simply missing the second part.

[Snails]

For better or for worse, I'm all too familiar with the far too controlling style of parenting (though not personally and the real life examples aren't so bloody of course). Are these controlling parents acting out of love? They believe so. Is it wrong? Definitely. Can their actions then be labeled a twisted or perverted love? I suppose it depends if you believe a person can love someone while deeply hurting them. Unfortunately, I'd say yes, such a thing is all too common.

It is love without any respect. Untempered by respect, love can just boil down to ugly ambition and narcissism.

All parents love their child. But some parents love an imagined improved version of their child far more than their actual child, and they are perfectly willing to be brutal to their actual child to make the pecking order clear. The net result is the child lives with tentative conditional love masquerading as unconditional parental love: "I will love you unconditionally as long as you think and behave the way I want; otherwise you are nobody to me. And I am angry that you dare hurt the better version of yourself by being this crappy person."

In the truly perverse cases, such as spousal murder, a person might kill the physical real person "in defense" of the imagined person. They will say out loud that they murdered out of love.

I am reading an interesting book on just this topic: Controlling People by Patricia Evans. (I am sure there are other similar books.)

[NerdyKris]

Very narrowly speaking, yes. Non-perverse parents recognize see their 23-year-old child is both their "little boy" AND a full grown adult with a life of their own. Tarquin is simply missing the second part.

And the part where you don't kill your child when they disobey you. This isn't a matter of "not seeing him as an adult" so much as "not seeing him as having a right to live if he doesn't serve my needs".

[Gift Jeraff]

That's an interesting take. Nale did tell him, essentially, that he no longer wanted special treatment. So, Tarquin treated him just like he would any other person who had opposed him.

Then again, Nale's fate was far more pleasant than the slaves or what T was planning to do to the bounty hunters. Even in the end, he was still giving him special treatment for being his property.

[ReaderAt2046]

I wonder if in Tarquin's mind he saw himself as finally respecting Nale as a grown man and treating him as such.

I'm pretty sure he did. His last words to Nale essentially say that the only reason he didn't kill Nale long ago was that Nale was his son. When Nale (as
Tarquin saw it) pleaded to be disowned, Tarquin did exactly what he would have done had anyone else killed Malak.

[AKA_Bait]

Then again, Nale's fate was far more pleasant than the slaves or what T was planning to do to the bounty hunters. Even in the end, he was still giving him special treatment for being his property.


I'm pretty sure he did. His last words to Nale essentially say that the only reason he didn't kill Nale long ago was that Nale was his son. When Nale (as
Tarquin saw it) pleaded to be disowned, Tarquin did exactly what he would have done had anyone else killed Malak.

Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I have to agree with Gift Jeraff. Do we really think that if some random mook or adventurer had managed to kill Malack that they would get off with only a quick stabbing to the chest? I think their death would probably not be so quick and painless. Tarquin's soldiers expect that their families would suffer if they cross him, we know that Tarquin's not above torture, and that he's willing to burn slaves alive just for an escape attempt.

[tulebast]

Actually, the more that I think about it, the more I have to agree with Gift Jeraff. Do we really think that if some random mook or adventurer had managed to kill Malack that they would get off with only a quick stabbing to the chest? I think their death would probably not be so quick and painless. Tarquin's soldiers expect that their families would suffer if they cross him, we know that Tarquin's not above torture, and that he's willing to burn slaves alive just for an escape attempt.

*Sigh*

Yes and no, depending on the circumstance. Tarquin could have tortured Nale, but to quote him, "What would the point of that be?" Torture isn't something that necessarily gives the jollies to Tarquin, and therefore performing it must have some purpose (just as everything must have a proper purpose for him). Nale has no family to make a point to (like any good sociopath, he seems unable to understand that Elan would still care for his brother) and his loyal soldiers don't seem to need an abject lesson in what an unforgiving person he can be (or if they do, watching him stab his own son for insubordination seems to have gotten the point across anyway). The end result, that Nale dies, is achieved and his schedule is freed up to focus on more important matters (namely, perpetuating his abuse upon his remaining son without dwelling on his failure with the first one). Don't you just love it when things zip along?

Honestly, in Tarquin's mind he was probably less being respectful to Nale and being more spiteful, probably thinking, "There, now don't you feel stupid?" as the knife slid home.

[Snails]

I am not sympathetic to the simplistic either/or thinking ascribed to Tarquin. The traditional solution to wayward princelings is exile. Tarquin had many options. If he possessed any meaningful love for Nale, he would have explored those other options. Yes, it would have been inconvenient, but so what? Tarquin was willing to overlook the inconvenience of Malack's murder when it served his preferred narrative for Nale. He could just as easily not overlook Malack's murder and show Nale off the continent.

[Porthos]

Nemo me denegat.

Many thanks. :smallsmile:

[Ridureyu]

Tarquin murdering his son was not merciful. If you think it was, then please never have children.

What Tarquin did was analyze the situation and realize that he could not longer use his son as a tool. So he disposed of him like garbage. There is no mercy in that. There was no need for excess cruelty, either - you crumple paper and throw it out, you don't spend a while yelling at it and shredding it.

[Bulldog Psion]

I am not sympathetic to the simplistic either/or thinking ascribed to Tarquin. The traditional solution to wayward princelings is exile. Tarquin had many options. If he possessed any meaningful love for Nale, he would have explored those other options. Yes, it would have been inconvenient, but so what? Tarquin was willing to overlook the inconvenience of Malack's murder when it served his preferred narrative for Nale. He could just as easily not overlook Malack's murder and show Nale off the continent.

The fact that he's compared Elan to Nale in order to threaten him supports this view. Clearly, his modus operandi is the same as Nale's:

"Nobody denies me, Elan. Not you, not Nale, not anyone!"

[AKA_Bait]

I am not sympathetic to the simplistic either/or thinking ascribed to Tarquin. The traditional solution to wayward princelings is exile. Tarquin had many options.

I think a lot of those options went out the window when Nale boasted to Laurin. Unless Tarquin could have somehow convinced her that Nale was going to be an asset to the team, I'd be shocked if she didn't kill him whatever Tarquin wanted.


If he possessed any meaningful love for Nale, he would have explored those other options.

Who said anything about meaningful love? Tarquin is a monster. We are speculating about what's going on inside a monster's head here. What the sort of parent who doesn't think that setting folks on fire is a good gift might think isn't really applicable.

Also, the exile Nale thing had already been tried and didn't work in a way that resulted in Malack's destruction.


Tarquin murdering his son was not merciful. If you think it was, then please never have children.

Too late. See avatar.

More seriously though, I'm not saying that Tarquin's act was actually merciful, you know, to non-psychopaths, but that it may have seemed so to him.


There was no need for excess cruelty, either - you crumple paper and throw it out, you don't spend a while yelling at it and shredding it.

There might have been though. Don't you think that a little excess cruelty, a la he suffered, might have earned Tarquin points with Laurin and perhaps other members of his team?

[Ridureyu]

There might have been though. Don't you think that a little excess cruelty, a la he suffered, might have earned Tarquin points with Laurin and perhaps other members of his team?


Why? As far as Tarquin is concerned, he already has all the points he needs.

And come on, I meant that if you think it really IS merciful, and all, with the children crack. Not "the psychopath thought he was merciful." But I still think that Tarquin had stopped thinking of mercy. He was just taking out what he thought was the trash, and the only reason why he hasn't done it to Elan is because he's out of spares now.

[Kish]

To continue the "Malack as Tarquin's good china" metaphor, Tarquin's attitude toward Nale was like Nale was the fancy new attachment on Tarquin's vacuum cleaner, that Tarquin had been so excited about the possibilities of, but whenever he turned his vacuum cleaner on the attachment broke some of his possessions. Finally it broke his good china and he realized that there was no way to use the attachment that wouldn't break his possessions. "That's fifty dollars I won't be getting back," he sighed in mild annoyance and moderate disappointment as he threw it in the trash.

[ThePhantasm]

That statement is made by approximately 100% of parents, generally hundreds of times. That it is a common excuse is because it is also a common reason. You make rules because you must if the brat is to survive and prosper, and if you have done your job properly, it is entirely his fault for any violations of the rules and he is making you punish him.

Never remember my parents saying that...

[Ridureyu]

Well, they did. hundreds of times.

[Kish]

It's even possible your memory is so badly defective that you don't remember your parents calling you "the brat."

Isn't it lucky that we have Argall here to explain to us how the world actually works?

[Composer99]

As far as I can see, Tarquin is a pathological narcissist with controlling, abusive tendencies. As per the quote from The Giant, it seems to me that he believed, sincerely believed, that he loved - and still loves - his sons. If nothing else, his narcissism would lead him to believe so because that's what good fathers do, and he would naturally assume he must be a good father.

If biological parents have any degree of built-in feelings of affection for their offspring, so would Tarquin, at least normally - he may not at present if he is undergoing a psychotic break (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotic_break).

Tarquin may well see his intervention in Elan's "narrative destiny" as being of a piece with, say, parents who discover their teenaged child - or even young adult - is becoming addicted to crack cocaine or has an advanced eating disorder, and taking drastic action to get them the help they need.

It's quite possible that Tarquin will never see how horribly out of line he is, nor appreciate that, faced with the choice between loving his sons and controlling them, he has chosen control over love.

[veti]

What Tarquin did was analyze the situation and realize that he could not longer use his son as a tool. So he disposed of him like garbage. There is no mercy in that. There was no need for excess cruelty, either - you crumple paper and throw it out, you don't spend a while yelling at it and shredding it.

This.

What the "But Tarquin loves his kids!!" line of thinking overlooks is that Tarquin, the character, has not the beginnings of a notion of a dream of a conception of what "love" is or means. That would require understanding such ideas as "respect" and "selflessness", neither of which has ever crossed his mind for a nanosecond since the day he was old enough to know his own name.


As far as I can see, Tarquin is a pathological narcissist with controlling, abusive tendencies. As per the quote from The Giant, it seems to me that he believed, sincerely believed, that he loved - and still loves - his sons. If nothing else, his narcissism would lead him to believe so because that's what good fathers do, and he would naturally assume he must be a good father.

Also this. I'm sure Tarquin does think he loves Elan, but only in the same way as I think I'd be a great prime minister - because I have no real notion of what the job actually involves.

[CaDzilla]

To Tarquin, people fit into categories. Everybody can be broken down by the tropes on their character pages. Anybody that he can identify as having enough tropes on their pages is less expendable. He actively does trope-worthy things in order to get them on his character page. He views Malack as a great resource because he had all the tropes of being a vampire and a death worshiper accounted for. To Tarquin, Nale only had generation Xerox and evil twin tropes. He also was busy for most of his childhood and the two didn't see each other for two years or so. Tarquin felt nothing towards Nale because he was just a small compilation of cliches

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

Here's a thought. Nale turned out the way he did because of Tarquin's upbringing.

What was Tarquin's father or mother (or both) like for him to turn out this way? :smalleek:

Probably not there at all. Apparently, one of the causes of sociopathy in adults (which Tarquin definitely has) is not having a stable family or no family at all during very early childhood. If Tarquin was abandoned on the streets of a city or in the wilderness at an early age, he wouldn't have lived with any sort of family environment at all. Concerned with survival as early as he can remember, he wouldn't have developed any empathy for others or understanding of the consequences of his actions for other people. That theory depends on the cause of sociopathy, which if I'm wrong, blows that little theory out of the water.

[Bulldog Psion]

That statement is made by approximately 100% of parents, generally hundreds of times. That it is a common excuse is because it is also a common reason. You make rules because you must if the brat is to survive and prosper, and if you have done your job properly, it is entirely his fault for any violations of the rules and he is making you punish him.

Oddly, I never heard my parents say "you forced me to do this." I don't think the phrase was ever spoken to me once, let alone hundreds of times. Nor any variation of it.

[Dark Matter]

What the "But Tarquin loves his kids!!" line of thinking overlooks...I don't think anyone has claimed Tarquin actually loves his kids by any normal definition of the word. It's more like he thinks he does.

[DaggerPen]

"You forced me to do this" is pretty typical abuser behavior (http://www.cdh.org/medical-services/services-A-Z/emergency/domestic-abuse/abusive-behavior-checklist.aspx).

So is criticizing or threatening your friends (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html)
Isolating you from your friends (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0916.html)
Getting angry if you pay too much attention to someone else (for example, this sub boss Xyklon you're so worried about)
Using phrases like "I'll show you who is boss" or "I'll put you in line" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0928.html)
And, hell, abusing animals (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0916.html)

I'd say Tarquin's a pretty typical abuser. Forcing women to marry him, forcing his sons to conform to his narrative expectations for them and either killing their friends or flat-out killing them when they don't... it makes me feel rather sympathetic to Nale's childhood, despite however badly he turned out.

[Domino Quartz]

That statement is made by approximately 100% of parents, generally hundreds of times. That it is a common excuse is because it is also a common reason. You make rules because you must if the brat is to survive and prosper, and if you have done your job properly, it is entirely his fault for any violations of the rules and he is making you punish him.


I'm happy to say that neither of my parents ever said that to me during my childhood.

[David Argall]

Oddly, I never heard my parents say "you forced me to do this." I don't think the phrase was ever spoken to me once, let alone hundreds of times. Nor any variation of it.
One variant would be "This is your fault". Or "You brought this on yourself". So I suspect you are focusing on direct denials of responsibilities and missing the indirect ones.

[ChristianSt]

One variant would be "This is your fault". Or "You brought this on yourself". So I suspect you are focusing on direct denials of responsibilities and missing the indirect ones.

"This is your fault" has a much different usage than "You forced me to do".

In the first case something did happen because of what you did, but I had nothing to do with it.

The latter is that I did something, but I want you to believe it is the same as the first.

If I use the first while meaning the second, then I'm saying it wrongly or I'm lying.

[Composer99]

One variant would be "This is your fault". Or "You brought this on yourself". So I suspect you are focusing on direct denials of responsibilities and missing the indirect ones.

Incorrect: both of those phrases can be used for consequences a child is experiencing entirely as a result of his or her own actions, without any interference or intervention from parents, such as breaking a favourite toy because of playing with it too roughly, or, say, a university-aged student living at home who has been put on academic probation.

A parent could use those phrases as substitutes for "you forced me to do this" (and it would not surprise me if some parents do use them as such) but they are not inherently synonymous.

[David Argall]

Incorrect: both of those phrases can be used for consequences a child is experiencing entirely as a result of his or her own actions, without any interference or intervention from parents, such as breaking a favourite toy because of playing with it too roughly, or, say, a university-aged student living at home who has been put on academic probation.

A parent could use those phrases as substitutes for "you forced me to do this" (and it would not surprise me if some parents do use them as such) but they are not inherently synonymous.
Having said that a parent could, and likely does, use these phrases as substitutes, you have said the phrases are correct. Nothing is inherently synonymous. All words have alternate meanings that are not synonymous with the meaning of words they are normally synonymous with.

[Composer99]

Having said that a parent could, and likely does, use these phrases as substitutes, you have said the phrases are correct.

No. You were the one who specifically conflated "this is your fault" and "you brought this on yourself" with "you forced me to do this", as if they were equivalent to, say, "car" vs. "automobile" vs. "family sedan" - or so it seems to me.

"You forced me to do this" implies, by default, that the person uttering it is engaging in something he or she knows (or strongly suspects) would be indefensible if he or she were called to account for it.

"This is your fault" and "you brought this on yourself" do not have that implication by default.


Nothing is inherently synonymous.

"Car", "Automobile"

or

"This is your fault", "You brought this on yourself", "You are responsible for the currently-prevailing circumstances"


All words have alternate meanings that are not synonymous with the meaning of words they are normally synonymous with.

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ron-Burgundy-That-Doesnt-Make-Any-Sense.gif

[Kish]

Just out of sheer curiosity, is anyone whose name isn't Argall under the impression that Rich meant Tarquin telling Elan "You forced me to do this, just like Nale did" to be anything other than a tour de force of vile self-delusion which reflects horrifically on Tarquin and not at all on Elan? That Rich meant a single syllable, a single letter of it to be valid in any way?

[AKA_Bait]

Just out of sheer curiosity, is anyone whose name isn't Argall under the impression that Rich meant Tarquin telling Elan "You forced me to do this, just like Nale did" to be anything other than a tour de force of vile self-delusion which reflects horrifically on Tarquin and not at all on Elan? That Rich meant a single syllable, a single letter of it to be valid in any way?

::Sits back to listen to the crickets.::

[Yoyoyo]

Just out of sheer curiosity, is anyone whose name isn't Argall under the impression that Rich meant Tarquin telling Elan "You forced me to do this, just like Nale did" to be anything other than a tour de force of vile self-delusion which reflects horrifically on Tarquin and not at all on Elan? That Rich meant a single syllable, a single letter of it to be valid in any way?

Good God, I hope not.

As to your good china/vacuum attachment metaphor, I'd tweak it a little. More like T spent $5,000 on the thing and tried like crazy to make it work and, just before he broke the good china, he knew he was courting trouble using this worthless attachment so close to the china cabinet. And then, looking at the ruined china, the attachment TALKS BACK TO HIM! How dare he...um, it.

T is an abusive parent and any "love" he had for his children is pure self-indulgement.

[Ridureyu]

Having said that a parent could, and likely does, use these phrases as substitutes, you have said the phrases are correct. Nothing is inherently synonymous. All words have alternate meanings that are not synonymous with the meaning of words they are normally synonymous with.

Well... It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[veti]

Nothing is inherently synonymous. All words have alternate meanings that are not synonymous with the meaning of words they are normally synonymous with.

Do you mind if I sig this? I think it's probable that this is a - unique - expression of that important thought.


... the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

[Snails]

Just out of sheer curiosity, is anyone whose name isn't Argall under the impression that Rich meant Tarquin telling Elan "You forced me to do this, just like Nale did" to be anything other than a tour de force of vile self-delusion which reflects horrifically on Tarquin and not at all on Elan? That Rich meant a single syllable, a single letter of it to be valid in any way?

To me, Tarquin's statement is obviously literally correct and valid, only spoken with perfect unintended irony. The Giant is not making a charge against Elan, of course. It is a confession about Tarquin's own state of mind when killing Nale.

[Domino Quartz]

Elan and Nale "brought this (Tarquin's actions towards them) on themselves" or "forced [Tarquin] to do this" in the sense that Tarquin did these things in response to their actions. However, I seriously doubt that any sane person would argue that either of those was a reasonable response.

[AgentofOdd]

Just out of sheer curiosity, is anyone whose name isn't Argall under the impression that Rich meant Tarquin telling Elan "You forced me to do this, just like Nale did" to be anything other than a tour de force of vile self-delusion which reflects horrifically on Tarquin and not at all on Elan? That Rich meant a single syllable, a single letter of it to be valid in any way?Seems to me that no one (including David) believes that line means anything else in this specific case. I believe David's argument is that you can't automatically assume abuse just because that phrase is uttered. You'd need some context. And yes, Tarquin has offered plenty of context for us to view him as an evil manipulative father.

[RNGgod]

Seems to me that no one (including David) believes that line means anything else in this specific case. I believe David's argument is that you can't automatically assume abuse just because that phrase is uttered. You'd need some context. And yes, Tarquin has offered plenty of context for us to view him as an evil manipulative father.

Yeah, no, Argall said that "100% of parents, generally hundreds of times" say what Tarquin says to Elan in this strip. And that it is necessary "so the brat survives." And that Tarquin is genuinely loves his children and wants what (he thinks) is best for them.

We are under no obligation to ignore the things that we believe are wrong with his post. You can choose to interpret his post more benignly than I (or several others) do, but he has made no effort to distinguish any valid points in his post from the genuinely disturbing things he says, both in this topic and in countless others.

[AgentofOdd]

Yeah, no, Argall said that "100% of parents, generally hundreds of times" say what Tarquin says to Elan in this strip. And that it is necessary "so the brat survives." And that Tarquin is genuinely loves his children and wants what (he thinks) is best for them.Yea, some of what David wrote can be a touch too informal, or uncouth I suppose. But I fail to see how my reading of his post (saying "you forced me to do this" by itself isn't an automatic sign of abuse, and that particular quibble aside, Tarquin is still a bad father showing "perverted love") is being too generous.

[RNGgod]

Yea, some of what David wrote can be a touch too informal, or uncouth I suppose. But I fail to see how my reading of his post (saying "you forced me to do this" by itself isn't an automatic sign of abuse, and that particular quibble aside, Tarquin is still a bad father showing "perverted love") is being too generous.

No, I wouldn't call your view unreasonable in the slightest, though I don't personally share it.

I'm saying that I don't think there's enough evidence in favor of the benign interpretation to criticize people for criticizing what they think Argall is saying, particularly in the absence of strong clarification (I would submit that what clarification he has given us tends to support our criticism, but I digress).

[Dark Matter]

Elan and Nale "brought this (Tarquin's actions towards them) on themselves" or "forced [Tarquin] to do this" in the sense that Tarquin did these things in response to their actions. However, I seriously doubt that any sane person would argue that either of those was a reasonable response.Through his actions, Nale deserved to die (just like Belkar, Xykon, Tarquin, Thog, the ABD, and yes, Red Cloak).

When Nale died, I thought we were seeing the actions of Tarquin-the-warlord; and from that perspective, there's a strong argument Nale brought it on himself. I use Roy as a rule of thumb, and Roy might have been able to kill Nale and have it be a non-evil act.

Now I lean more towards thinking Nale's murder was an act of Tarquin-the-parent, and an act of vanity rather than necessity, which makes it yet another of Tarquin's evil acts and perhaps one of madness too.

[AgentofOdd]

No, I wouldn't call your view unreasonable in the slightest, though I don't personally share it.

I'm saying that I don't think there's enough evidence in favor of the benign interpretation to criticize people for criticizing what they think Argall is saying, particularly in the absence of strong clarification (I would submit that what clarification he has given us tends to support our criticism, but I digress).For me at least, to interpret David's posts in a different way, I'd have to believe he in some ways agrees or sympathizes with Tarquin. That's something I can't do. Not unless he explicitly says so.

[Rodin]

The thing I don't buy about the "Nale-as-disposable-object" theory is just how much trouble Tarquin has gone through for him. Let's see:

He protected him from Malack after Nale killed his "children".

When Nale made his coup attempt, he not only didn't kill him during the attempt but did not come after him afterwards (compare to how relentlessly he's after Elan now).

Upon re-uniting with Nale, he protects him from Malack again.

He then sets up a scheme to reconcile Nale and Malack, at the risk of alienating Malack. This same scheme is designed to reconcile Nale with the rest of Team Tarquin by showcasing his skills. We later find out that the Gate was irrelevant to Tarquin, making this purpose the only reason to bring Nale along.

When Tarquin finds out that Nale killed Malack, his first thought is to reconcile even that breach with the rest of his team as the only way to keep his son alive. Again, there's a severe risk of causing a breach within his team by doing so. Nale had long since danced past the "potential asset" line into "massive liability" territory, and Tarquin is still trying to make it right.

Nale rejects even that. Tarquin is at a loss for what else to do, so he resorts to asking Nale...who rejects everything categorically. So Tarquin writes him off.

Tarquin loved Nale. Just not as much as he loves himself. This doesn't make Tarquin non-abusive, or make him innocent of treating Nale like a tool. But he went far further than was rational in trying to "rehabilitate" Nale, and the only reason I can see for that is (twisted) fatherly love.

And it's something that I like about Tarquin - it shows that even an utterly evil person can still care deeply for family, while also being ruthless enough to discard that family if said family defies them.

[Dodom]

I don't see Tarquin's attempts to fix Nale back into the team as something done on Nale's behalf.
Nale quite clearly wanted nothing to do with them, and only returned in the area for his own OOTS related adventure, with an invisibility ring and no intention of coming into direct contact with Tarquin. He did not want or need his help to "fix" things for him, as being reconciled with Malack or anybody else was never his goal. T was fixing things for himself; fixing his team to include his mini-me against its own interest.
Regardless of everything else Nale did, rejecting that "help" is entirely reasonable.

[Kish]

Indeed, to say that Tarquin valued Nale solely as an extension of his own ego is not to say that Tarquin values anything or anyone more than he valued Nale (except larger extensions of Tarquin's ego, and the main body of Tarquin's ego housed within Tarquin).

[Rodin]

I don't see Tarquin's attempts to fix Nale back into the team as something done on Nale's behalf.
Nale quite clearly wanted nothing to do with them, and only returned in the area for his own OOTS related adventure, with an invisibility ring and no intention of coming into direct contact with Tarquin. He did not want or need his help to "fix" things for him, as being reconciled with Malack or anybody else was never his goal. T was fixing things for himself; fixing his team to include his mini-me against its own interest.
Regardless of everything else Nale did, rejecting that "help" is entirely reasonable.

Which is what makes the love twisted. Tarquin thought he was helping Nale. The thought that Nale didn't want to be associated with Tarquin was utterly alien, in much the same way that Elan not wanting to follow Tarquin's narrative is totally baffling him.

Love does not have to be healthy.

[Tannhaeuser]

What would "No One Denies Me" be in Latin, anyway? Might make for a good family motto. :smallamused:

"Nemo me negat," strictly speaking, though that is a statement of fact: "Nobody actually ever denies me." I have a feeling that the motto should read, "Nemo me neget, Let nobody deny me, No-one may deny me," or even "Nemini me negandum est, Denying me is [wise, prudent, allowed] for no-one." Or by adding one word, it is possible to get even closer, and to echo an actual Latin proverb, "Nemo me impune negat" (instead of "Nemo me impune lacessit, No-one injures/offends me [and remains] unpunished.")

[DaggerPen]

Something worth noting about Tarquin and Nale - Tarquin was the one who forced Nale into the team-up in the first place. He was the one who revealed Nale's invisibility instead of just letting him get away, and he was the one who threatened to let Malack kill Nale in order to prompt Nale into spilling all the info about the Gates, etc., and to maneuver him into teaming up for "business." Tarquin could easily have let Nale get away; instead, he chose to reveal Nale's hiding place.

Certainly, I'm sure he thought he was doing so with Nale's best interests at heart. Indeed, I'd bet that when he saw Nale there hiding invisibly and knew that Nale's team was after some McGuffin, he immediately devised a plan to bring Nale in as a member of his team, ignoring such issues as Nale and Malack's hatred of each other and Nale's unwillingness to join his team. But the fact is, he could have easily let Nale get away completely unharmed, and instead he chose to try to bring Nale under his thumb.

[Mike Havran]

Something worth noting about Tarquin and Nale - Tarquin was the one who forced Nale into the team-up in the first place. He was the one who revealed Nale's invisibility instead of just letting him get away, and he was the one who threatened to let Malack kill Nale in order to prompt Nale into spilling all the info about the Gates, etc., and to maneuver him into teaming up for "business." Tarquin could easily have let Nale get away; instead, he chose to reveal Nale's hiding place.

Certainly, I'm sure he thought he was doing so with Nale's best interests at heart. Indeed, I'd bet that when he saw Nale there hiding invisibly and knew that Nale's team was after some McGuffin, he immediately devised a plan to bring Nale in as a member of his team, ignoring such issues as Nale and Malack's hatred of each other and Nale's unwillingness to join his team. But the fact is, he could have easily let Nale get away completely unharmed, and instead he chose to try to bring Nale under his thumb.Tarquin couldn't ignore the whole big quest about Draketooths - he needed to get the information from Nale. He might have tried to locate Nale without Malack, but that would have been complicated and there was a chance that Malack will find Nale when Tarquin's not around to stop him.

Edit: Nemo me neget is an excellent motto :smallbiggrin:

[Snails]

Tarquin couldn't ignore the whole big quest about Draketooths - he needed to get the information from Nale. He might have tried to locate Nale without Malack, but that would have been complicated and there was a chance that Malack will find Nale when Tarquin's not around to stop him.

That sounds a bit like making excuses. (Perhaps I misunderstand.)

Tarquin already had planned how to track to Order. Tarquin had means of contacting Nale without Malack knowing (e.g. hire a spellcaster to cast the Sending spell).

Tarquin had many options regarding how to pursue his perceived interests. Dangling Nale in front of Malack like a piece of red meat was only one of many, many possibilities. That he chose such a volatile ptactic and it blew up on him is primarily his own fault. It may have seemed convenient to Tarquin to juggle Nale and Elan and Malack and the Gate all at the same time, but it was beyond foolish.

In fact, I am pretty sure that Wisdom is Tarquin's "dumpstat" (although he has lots of magical baubles to compensate for the Will save problem).

[Mike Havran]

That sounds a bit like making excuses. (Perhaps I misunderstand.)

Tarquin already had planned how to track to Order. Tarquin had means of contacting Nale without Malack knowing (e.g. hire a spellcaster to cast the Sending spell).

Tarquin had many options regarding how to pursue his perceived interests. Dangling Nale in front of Malack like a piece of red meat was only one of many, many possibilities. That he chose such a volatile ptactic and it blew up on him is primarily his own fault. It may have seemed convenient to Tarquin to juggle Nale and Elan and Malack and the Gate all at the same time, but it was beyond foolish.

In fact, I am pretty sure that Wisdom is Tarquin's "dumpstat" (although he has lots of magical baubles to compensate for the Will save problem).Beyond foolish? It was super-effective. In a matter of a few rounds, he managed to:
1. Get Nale and Sabine under his boot.
2. Obtain all the information he could possibly get.
3. Make Malack openly postpone his revenge.
4. Assemble a team that would both allow him to conceal his identity and is powerful enough to defeat the whole Order.

It was an insightful move. Any of alternative proposals would be much longer and riskier. True, it was pretty mean to his poor little Nale but Tarquin doesn't care about such things.

The foolish thing was to leave Nale and Malack without his supervision. He had all the time he needed to take Nale with him and teach him something about leading large army, and let Malack and Z guard the Order. He should have known that Malack and Nale won't cooperate well on their own.

[AKA_Bait]

In fact, I am pretty sure that Wisdom is Tarquin's "dumpstat" (although he has lots of magical baubles to compensate for the Will save problem).

It may very well be. Also, if he's a TOB class then he may not even need baubles to compensate for a will save. There are maneuvers available to TOB characters that permit them to substitute a concentration check for various saving throws.

[Boring McReader]

Something worth noting about Tarquin and Nale - Tarquin was the one who forced Nale into the team-up in the first place. He was the one who revealed Nale's invisibility instead of just letting him get away, and he was the one who threatened to let Malack kill Nale in order to prompt Nale into spilling all the info about the Gates, etc., and to maneuver him into teaming up for "business." Tarquin could easily have let Nale get away; instead, he chose to reveal Nale's hiding place.

Certainly, I'm sure he thought he was doing so with Nale's best interests at heart. Indeed, I'd bet that when he saw Nale there hiding invisibly and knew that Nale's team was after some McGuffin, he immediately devised a plan to bring Nale in as a member of his team, ignoring such issues as Nale and Malack's hatred of each other and Nale's unwillingness to join his team. But the fact is, he could have easily let Nale get away completely unharmed, and instead he chose to try to bring Nale under his thumb.

Tarquin's parental philosophy seems to be "Make all my children's decisions for them in a way that helps them fit into my story." He wasn't blatantly controlling Elan from the beginning, but he began inserting himself into Elan's plans as early as he could.

Nale was broken. Every aspect of his life was under Tarquin's control, and he didn't have the strength or wisdom to escape. It's not obvious how much of a subject he is until we see him interacting with Tarquin during and after the race to the gate. There we see Tarquin stripping away Nale's independence at every opportunity. Tarquin's method of letting Nale prove himself is by micromanaging everything Nale does so Nale will look like he's worthy of joining Tarquin's team. He only lets Nale act independently when he thinks he's set up conditions so Nale can't possibly fail.

When Nale rejects Tarquin, we realize this is new. For all his complaints, all his attempts at betrayal, Nale was always playing by Tarquin's rules. He'd do Tarquin's quests, take Tarquin's character advice, and use Tarquin's story logic. Even his betrayals are part of Tarquin's attempts to mold him into a villain. Until his final panels, Nale hadn't stood against Tarquin as his own person, because if he had he'd be dead already.

Nale's failures are Tarquin's failures, because Tarquin was steering Nale for his entire life. Tarquin knew this and was frustrated. He doesn't take responsibility for it; he blames Elan and Nale for making him hurt them. But every second he sees his sons disappointing him must have frustrated him, making him wonder why his superior parenting skills aren't fixing his sons' mistakes.

Tarquin's comfortable with his sons rejecting him, fighting him, betraying him, even disappointing him, if it fits his vision for them. Nale the inept schemer was manageable, and there was always a chance he could redeem Nale into a true villain. Elan the noble hero is a perfect foil, as long as he plays the hero the right way. But if his sons make a decision Tarquin deeply disagrees with, he'll lean harder and harder until they bend to his will. We didn't see Tarquin explode at Nale because Nale never stood against him the way Elan has.

[DaggerPen]

Tarquin's parental philosophy seems to be "Make all my children's decisions for them in a way that helps them fit into my story." He wasn't blatantly controlling Elan from the beginning, but he began inserting himself into Elan's plans as early as he could.

Nale was broken. Every aspect of his life was under Tarquin's control, and he didn't have the strength or wisdom to escape. It's not obvious how much of a subject he is until we see him interacting with Tarquin during and after the race to the gate. There we see Tarquin stripping away Nale's independence at every opportunity. Tarquin's method of letting Nale prove himself is by micromanaging everything Nale does so Nale will look like he's worthy of joining Tarquin's team. He only lets Nale act independently when he thinks he's set up conditions so Nale can't possibly fail.

When Nale rejects Tarquin, we realize this is new. For all his complaints, all his attempts at betrayal, Nale was always playing by Tarquin's rules. He'd do Tarquin's quests, take Tarquin's character advice, and use Tarquin's story logic. Even his betrayals are part of Tarquin's attempts to mold him into a villain. Until his final panels, Nale hadn't stood against Tarquin as his own person, because if he had he'd be dead already.

Nale's failures are Tarquin's failures, because Tarquin was steering Nale for his entire life. Tarquin knew this and was frustrated. He doesn't take responsibility for it; he blames Elan and Nale for making him hurt them. But every second he sees his sons disappointing him must have frustrated him, making him wonder why his superior parenting skills aren't fixing his sons' mistakes.

Tarquin's comfortable with his sons rejecting him, fighting him, betraying him, even disappointing him, if it fits his vision for them. Nale the inept schemer was manageable, and there was always a chance he could redeem Nale into a true villain. Elan the noble hero is a perfect foil, as long as he plays the hero the right way. But if his sons make a decision Tarquin deeply disagrees with, he'll lean harder and harder until they bend to his will. We didn't see Tarquin explode at Nale because Nale never stood against him the way Elan has.

That makes a whole lot of sense. Tarquin might have thought that Nale's plans were lacking, but even then, that was Nale trying to fit into his narrative and just not being good enough, clearly requiring yet more of Daddy's Guidance to work out. And we will continue to do this, young man, until you learn how to be a villain right.