I cheered when Nale died [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Lord

2017-12-05, 08:48 AM

hroþila

2017-12-05, 09:28 AM

Many saw it as Tarquin's moral event horizon because it showed the extent to which even the people he claimed to care about (Nale, Elan, Malack) were nothing but tools and pawns to him. Tarquin never ever* offered Nale a way out where he took into account what his son actually wanted: it was all about Tarquin, the whole time.

That Nale was an idiot, a silly recurring villain and a terrible person doesn't really change that in my view.

*I'm not talking just about their final scene, at which point Nale had certainly burned his bridges by killing Malack, but in general.

Peelee

2017-12-05, 09:47 AM

You thought Tarquin was reasonable?

Lord

2017-12-05, 10:05 AM

You thought Tarquin was reasonable?

No, I'd hoped he turn out to be an evil aligned reasonable authority figure who helps them kill Xykon because ending the world is bad for business. He didn't turn out that way of course. Still I would say he was far more reasonable than Nale.

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 10:54 AM

This topic may be a bit late but I’d like you to bear with me.
Am I the only one who cheered when Tarquin murdered Nale? Seriously, I liked Tarquin. I thought he was a really cunning, and ruthlessly competent villain who fit into the story. I liked him enough that I almost hoped he’d just help the Order and let them go, thereby continuing his reign and being a sort of evil reasonable authority figure.
I too really like Tarquin. As a villain. I like him because of how despicable he his. That does not him I want him to succeed nor does that excuse his crimes.

I never liked Nale. And it wasn’t just because he was more or less irrelevant to most of the story save for introducing Tarquin’s existence and acting as an unwitting pawn. He put on these constant speeches and thought super highly of himself, but he had no real goal other than killing Elan. His initial plan made sense, and if he had built on that to have his own agenda I might have liked him. As it is he is one step higher on the ladder from a generic doomsday villain.
He was basically just a crazy serial killer with no character arc, no overarching goals, no redeeming features and no real place in the narrative beyond telling Tarquin about the gates and getting Elan to become a Dashing Swordsman.
What is Tarquin's role in the story then ? If you answered showing what Elan would be if he was Evil and contributing to Elan's growth then congratulation you've described Nale's role in the plot. Oh and his behaviour explains why Nale is so much twisted as a person (note the "so much" here I don't Nale would have been as good as Elan without Tarquin's influence but he would have been more balanced).
Tarquin's ego problems are even worse than Nale's in my opinion. And his motivations amount to fame, hedonistic pleasures and evil for evil's sake, not that far from Dark Lord Villain McEvilface the Thirteenth either.

He wasn’t even the most interesting or funny member of his team, with those honors going to Sabine and Thog. Tarquin’s assessment of him was absolutely right, and maybe that is why I enjoyed Tarquin. He shared my opinion on Nale.
Fair enough. Though you should note That Tarquin's assessment of Nale works even better for Tarquin himself.

Anyway I thought that Tarquin stabbing Nale was the absolute most awesome thing in a book filled with awesome scenes. Tarquin gave Nale every out, and Nale had the sheer stupidity to refuse it. And in one panel my personal scrappy for OOTS was stabbed, followed in the next strip by him having his corpse destroyed.
For me it is without a doubt Tarquin’s finest hour.
Which is ironic, because a lot of people felt sorry for Nale and felt as though it was somehow Tarquin’s moral event horizon or something. I didn’t really get that at all. Tarquin gave him every chance to save himself.
A father killing his own son while showing no emotion whatsoever is one of the most horrible thing I can imagine. Saying that Nale died because of his own stupidity is true. Saying he died only because of that is wrong. Tarquin did not give Nale "every out" as evidenced by the fact that Tarquin drove a dagger into Nale's heart. The rational response to Nale's declaration of independence would have been to let him run or face Laurin as he wanted, sure hewould have died but Tarquin would not have been the one to do it. That's marginally better.
This is one of Tarquin's darkest moment because it erases any possibility that he cared about any one but himself. Not Nale, not Elan, not Malack, no one. "I will forgive you if you accept toserve under me" is not how a father behaves. ; "I will avenge you, unless your murderer accepts to take your place" is not how a friend behave either.
Love and forgiveness are not conditionnal, or least ought not to be.

factotum

2017-12-05, 11:02 AM

Yeah, I'm with Fyraltari on that one--a father killing his own son for the hideous crime of *disagreeing with him* is just horrendous, and to me sealed how utterly beyond redemption Tarquin is. Although I was pretty much already convinced of that when he burned a bunch of escaped slaves to death just to write his son's name in the hills, to be honest.

Lord

2017-12-05, 11:27 AM

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 11:45 AM

Here's the thing. If Tarquin were a lawful good lord of paladins in the same situation he would be doing exactly the same thing. Giving his utterly evil spawn a last second chance, and then executing him when it is refused. Hell, people might call him stupid good for giving him said chance. Now obviously Tarquin may be doing it for different reasons, but the only way Nale is walking out of that situation alive is by working with Tarquin. If Tarquin let him go his two subordinates would have killed him.

I viewed the situation as Tarquin's love for his son coming into conflict with his rage at the death of his best friend. He tries first to get Nale to back down and save his own life, and when that fails he falls back on vengeance and stabs him to death.

I guess I just read his character differently from others.

No, if Tarquin were a lawful good lord of paladins he would have taken his son (who is out spells, unarmed and half dead already) to custody and charged a magistrate with handling the case and pronouncing the sentence. There is a reason family members are not allowed to be part of the justice system.
I ma not sure what makes you read "rage" in Tarquin's actions. Seems completely cold and calculated to me. And again, if he loved Nale he would not bargain with him. Or rather that love, while it would be compromised by the one he had for Malack, would not be diminished by Nale refusing to work for him.
If it was truly "He is my son and I still love him but he killed my best friend whom I love too", Nale's words here would not factor in his decision.

Keltest

2017-12-05, 11:54 AM

No, if Tarquin were a lawful good lord of paladins he would have taken his son (who his out spells, unarmed and half dead already) to custody and charged a magistrate with handling the case and pronouncing the sentence. There is a reason family members are not allowed to be part of the justice system.
I ma not sure what makes you read "rage" in Tarquin's actions. Seems completely cold and calculated to me. And again, if he loved Nale he would not bargain with him. Or rather that love, while it would be compromised by the one he had for Malack, would not be diminished by Nale refusing to work for him.
If it was truly "He is my son and I still love him but he killed my best friend whom I love too", Nale's words here would not factor in his decision.

Sure they would. Nale rejected Tarquin's fatherly considerations to his face. While I doubt a hypothetical LG tarquin would have stabbed him then and there, the result would be the same, because that's what happens when you utterly reject the forces that are keeping you alive.

Honestly, Tarquin asks a good question. What WAS Nale thinking would happen when he picked that fight?

Cazero

2017-12-05, 12:03 PM

Not like Nale had a choice. Tarquin forced him into the situation (with a knife in the back, no less) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html).
Now defend that as fatherly love. I dare you.

Kish

2017-12-05, 12:07 PM

wumpus

2017-12-05, 12:24 PM

Here's the thing. If Tarquin were a lawful good lord of paladins in the same situation he would be doing exactly the same thing. Giving his utterly evil spawn a last second chance, and then executing him when it is refused.

That wasn't remotely what Tarquin did or demanded. He demanded that Nale replace Malack (except in a totally subservient position, unlike how Malack was simply a friend) and then killed Nale when he refused to serve. Paladins are not in the [personal] vengeance department, so nearly all the reasons Tarquin had to kill Nale wouldn't apply.

- As a side note, I suspect that plenty of paladins have "the high justice" (are authorized to execute criminals) in any area not *both* densely populated and lawful good. They should be well aware that they are likely the best source of law, wisdom, and goodness for miles around and would only do justice better by dragging the accused before a high priest or noted king's justice. Obviously, executing during a "combat round" is least likely to be the best time to come to a conclusion (the paladin needs a much more level head than likely in combat), but at some point a decision must be made. I can see some paladins (those of less wisdom, PCs) deciding that they aren't worthy of "the high justice", but it appears to be in a order of paladin's turf.

5a Violista

2017-12-05, 12:42 PM

The reason I liked Tarquin was because of this scene (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html) where there's a distinct irony between Tarquin's point of view and what the audience is experiencing.

Unfortunately, that scene happened after Nale died so I didn't cheer Nale's death when it happened.

Synesthesy

2017-12-05, 12:42 PM

Here's the thing. If Tarquin were a lawful good lord of paladins in the same situation he would be doing exactly the same thing. Giving his utterly evil spawn a last second chance, and then executing him when it is refused. Hell, people might call him stupid good for giving him said chance. Now obviously Tarquin may be doing it for different reasons, but the only way Nale is walking out of that situation alive is by working with Tarquin. If Tarquin let him go his two subordinates would have killed him.

I viewed the situation as Tarquin's love for his son coming into conflict with his rage at the death of his best friend. He tries first to get Nale to back down and save his own life, and when that fails he falls back on vengeance and stabs him to death.

I guess I just read his character differently from others.

I don't see it this way. First, you are saying what a neutral lord of paladins would do. We have seen what the LG lord would do when Hinjo led Miko to prison and to a fair trial instead of killing her (with Roy's help). A LG always hope in redemption, not just in "obey me and you'll free". Tarquin reminds me of a mafia boss. They give you a choice: you can either accept their deal at their own conditions, or you can die by their hand; and when they'll kill you, it will be your fault (in their opinion).

I have always liked Tarquin's character, the same way I liked Michael Corleone: hoping for their death in the end, but wishing to see more of their stories. I have never liked Nale that much instead, because I always felt like he was there just to slow down the story, while I wanted to go back to Xykon's. After his death I changed my mind, now I really like Linear Guild's story. Nale should have compromised with his father, then run away, reform Linear Guild and live to fight another day, but he couldn't. He had to say to the world that he was what he was, that he wasn't Tarquin nor Tarquin's tool, that he wasn't Elan, that he had his own business and his own story to be told. That he was free.

Synesthesy

2017-12-05, 12:51 PM

Here's the thing. If Tarquin were a lawful good lord of paladins in the same situation he would be doing exactly the same thing. Giving his utterly evil spawn a last second chance, and then executing him when it is refused. Hell, people might call him stupid good for giving him said chance. Now obviously Tarquin may be doing it for different reasons, but the only way Nale is walking out of that situation alive is by working with Tarquin. If Tarquin let him go his two subordinates would have killed him.

I viewed the situation as Tarquin's love for his son coming into conflict with his rage at the death of his best friend. He tries first to get Nale to back down and save his own life, and when that fails he falls back on vengeance and stabs him to death.

I guess I just read his character differently from others.

I don't see it this way. First, you are saying what a neutral lord of paladins would do. We have seen what the LG lord would do when Hinjo led Miko to prison and to a fair trial instead of killing her (with Roy's help). A LG always hope in redemption, not just in "obey me and you'll free". Tarquin reminds me of a mafia boss. They give you a choice: you can either accept their deal at their own conditions, or you can die by their hand; and when they'll kill you, it will be your fault (in their opinion).

I have always liked Tarquin's character, the same way I liked Michael Corleone: hoping for their death in the end, but wishing to see more of their stories. I have never liked Nale that much instead, because I always felt like he was there just to slow down the story, while I wanted to go back to Xykon's. After his death I changed my mind, now I really like Linear Guild's story. Nale should have compromised with his father, then run away, reform Linear Guild and live to fight another day, but he couldn't. He had to say to the world that he was what he was, that he wasn't Tarquin nor Tarquin's tool, that he wasn't Elan, that he had his own business and his own story to be told. That he was free.

littlebum2002

2017-12-05, 01:47 PM

100% of the debates about Tarquin are between people who listened to his explanations for his behavior and believed them and people who judged him by his actions.

Tarquin said he was reasonable, his actions showed he was not.
Tarquin said he was logical, his actions showed he was not.
Tarquin said he gave Nale every out, his actions showed he did not.

There was no way that Tarquin was going to become the "evil dictator who helps the heroes out of his own self interest", because that's not his role. He says that's his role, but he's a known liar, so why would you trust him? The only thing he desired was to become the main villain of the story. If you trusted him in any of his attempts to make people believe something else, then you got deceived just like they did.

Peelee

2017-12-05, 02:30 PM

100% of the debates about Tarquin are between people who listened to his explanations for his behavior and believed them and people who judged him by his actions.

Tarquin said he was reasonable, his actions showed he was not.

Let's be fair here, OP said he did not think Tarquin was reasonable, but thought he would turn reasonable. Similarly, I thought Tarquin would turn into a turnip. Alas, we were both disappointed.

Lord Torath

2017-12-05, 02:35 PM

Doug Lampert

2017-12-05, 02:35 PM

It wasn't Tarquin's moral event horizon because everything Tarquin showed about himself since he was first introduced made it ever clearer that he had merrily sailed through his first moral event horizon years before Elan or Nale were ever born.

As far as I can tell, Lord, you were so fixated on Nale and how much you hate him that you didn't take in anything about Tarquin except that Nale didn't like him. Ironically missing, along with everything else, the fact that he was the one who turned Nale into what he was.

Yep, following the feast, no one aware of 3.x rules could think Tarquin was anything but utterly evil. (Hint: he had an almost certainly good creature, able to speak and exercise moral choice, vivisected to get an exotic Pate for dinner. Nothing he does afterward is that bad.)

Following 200' tall burning sign, no one else had much of an excuse.

Nale was evil. Tarquin is evil. Nale provoked Tarquin in a way that leaves me agreeing with Keltest:

Honestly, Tarquin asks a good question. What WAS Nale thinking would happen when he picked that fight?

The answer of course is that Nale wasn't thinking, and that Tarquin had no way to reasonably let Nale get away alive at that point. I consider claiming that as a father he shouldn't have done it himself to be quibbling. There's a perfectly reasonable attitude that a responsible man shoots his own dog if it needs to be done.

I think a Good ruler in an equivalent situation might well have killed his son himself, but he'd have done it because the son was a murderous waste of oxygen, not because the son was a murderous waste of oxygen WHO DEFIED and DENIED ME! HIS FATHER!

All that said, I was quite happy when Nale got his. He deserved it dozens of times over for his plot in Cliffport alone. But killing Nale didn't make me think any better of Tarquin (or any worse really, Amazingly Evil Egomaniac acts like Amazingly Evil Egomaniac, news at 11).

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 02:37 PM

Sure they would. Nale rejected Tarquin's fatherly considerations to his face. While I doubt a hypothetical LG tarquin would have stabbed him then and there, the result would be the same, because that's what happens when you utterly reject the forces that are keeping you alive.

Honestly, Tarquin asks a good question. What WAS Nale thinking would happen when he picked that fight?

"Fatherly considerations"? It would have been fatherly to be proud of Nale's will and desire to be his own man. Tarquin only offered him aleash there.

When you said fight do you mean when he killed Malack or when he told Tarquin? Because his killing Malack worked and he would have survived if it was not for the HPoH. And when he told Tarquin, I guess he was not thinking at all. He has a history of poor pattern recognition and underestimating his opponents (what WAS his plan to deal with Xykon seriously ?). Plus it was a terrible day, he just managed to reach a goal he had since childhood and his despised father was trying to undermine him again. Of course he was going to gloat.

Ruck

2017-12-05, 02:38 PM

Yeah, I'm with Fyraltari on that one--a father killing his own son for the hideous crime of *disagreeing with him* is just horrendous, and to me sealed how utterly beyond redemption Tarquin is.
I don't believe that's really why Tarquin killed Nale, though; I think it was revenge for Malack. I don't know if Rich intended for this to be clear one way or the other, but I think there's a huge difference between "You want nothing to do with me, so I'll kill you even though you're my own son" and "You want nothing to do with me, so now you're just some guy who murdered my best friend, and I'm going to take the appropriate action in response."

I won't say I cheered when Nale died, but I wasn't broken up about it. I hated Nale, which I guess was a sign he was a good villain, but he was just so petty and hateful, he lived for nothing but to make Elan miserable, and the Order didn't have any means of changing him or putting a permanent end to the threat he posed. I am glad he is in the Order's past as the story approaches its endgame.

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 02:51 PM

Only thing I'll quibble with you is your statement that Tarquin's a known liar. He scrupulously avoids saying anything that is untrue. He tells the truth, not the whole truth, but nothing but the truth.
Lying isn't just stating untruths as if they were true. Lying is intentionally making someone believing something you know is wrong. Wether or not the words that came out of Tarquin's were factually true is irrelevant. The questions are "Did his interlocutor leave the conversation convinced of something false?" and "Did Tarquin know about this?". If the answer to both is "Yes" then Tarquin is a liar.
He knew exactly what Amun-Zora thought his dragoons were going to do and he did not correct her : he lied to her.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-05, 03:04 PM

Lying isn't just stating untruths as if they were true. Lying is intentionally making someone believing something you know is wrong. Wether or not the words that came out of Tarquin's were factually true is irrelevant. The questions are "Did his interlocutor leave the conversation convinced of something false?" and "Did Tarquin know about this?". If the answer to both is "Yes" then Tarquin is a liar.
He knew exactly what Amun-Zora thought his dragoons were going to do and he did not correct her : he lied to her.

No. Telling someone a truth in the knowledge the listener will misinterpret it is misinformation, not lying. Different immoralities deserve different names. Especially in D&D, where outright lying is Chaotic while telling truths (partial or otherwise) to shape opinion is Lawful.

Grey Wolf

Peelee

2017-12-05, 03:11 PM

No. Telling someone a truth in the knowledge the listener will misinterpret it is misinformation, not lying. Different immoralities deserve different names. Especially in D&D, where outright lying is Chaotic while telling truths (partial or otherwise) to shape opinion is Lawful.

Grey Wolf

Well, there's also lying by omission. If someone asked a country for troops to aide them from an invading army, and the reply was "I sent my troops to your country" while omitting "in order to conquer it," that would still be lying, would it not?

Jasdoif

2017-12-05, 03:12 PM

I don't know if Rich intended for this to be clear one way or the other, but I think there's a huge difference between "You want nothing to do with me, so I'll kill you even though you're my own son" and "You want nothing to do with me, so now you're just some guy who murdered my best friend, and I'm going to take the appropriate action in response."Notice what they have in common, though: "You want nothing to do with me, so I'm going to kill you".

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-05, 03:20 PM

Well, there's also lying by omission. If someone asked a country for troops to aide them from an invading army, and the reply was "I sent my troops to your country" while omitting "in order to conquer it," that would still be lying, would it not?

In the vernacular, maybe. But it is not an actual lie, and therefore in precise language it should not be called lying.

Put another way, we give different names to the act of taking someone's life. Manslaughter is not the same as murder. We do this because it is understood that the circumstances change the moral gravity of the act, even if the end result is the same.

Equally, lying and misinforming have the same result, but the moral implications are different. Now, you can of course add disclaimer and qualifiers every time, but isn't it easier to use different words for different concepts? But what we shouldn't do is equate them. They are not the same.

Grey Wolf

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 03:25 PM

No. Telling someone a truth in the knowledge the listener will misinterpret it is misinformation, not lying. Different immoralities deserve different names. Especially in D&D, where outright lying is Chaotic while telling truths (partial or otherwise) to shape opinion is Lawful.

Grey Wolf

Do you also have different names for murdering by drowning and murdering by showing off a cliff? If you do I'd be interested in knowing them.

So wait, when Shojo let everybody assume he was a paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html) or when he did not tell the paladins about his hiring the order that was lawful of him?
Man the alignment system is reeeeeeeally weird.

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 03:31 PM

In the vernacular, maybe. But it is not an actual lie, and therefore in precise language it should not be called lying.

Put another way, we give different names to the act of taking someone's life. Manslaughter is not the same as murder. We do this because it is understood that the circumstances change the moral gravity of the act, even if the end result is the same.

Equally, lying and misinforming have the same result, but the moral implications are different. Now, you can of course add disclaimer and qualifiers every time, but isn't it easier to use different words for different concepts? But what we shouldn't do is equate them. They are not the same.

Grey Wolf
But the difference between telling untruths and leaving out key information is minuscule while the difference of intent between murder and manslaughter makes a world of difference between them.

I agree that the end is not enough to say "this is the same thing" but when the intent and the end are both the same isn't it just two occurence of the very same concept?

Ruck

2017-12-05, 03:32 PM

Notice what they have in common, though: "You want nothing to do with me, so I'm going to kill you".

But I just don't think you can reduce it that simply once you've given Tarquin one of the oldest human motivations there is to act.

It's quite easy for me to think that Tarquin is still willing to give Nale a chance based on the reasoning of "Well, at least I still have one of [Nale / Malack]; I wouldn't have chosen this, but I'm going to try to work with what I have left." But when Nale totally rejects him, then Nale becomes, as I said, just some guy who murdered Tarquin's best friend (among whatever other litany of crimes he's committed against Tarquin in the past).

If Nale hadn't killed Malack, I could, again, see Tarquin shrugging and saying "Whatever, just get off the Western Continent then. Without my protection you'll be dead in six months anyway."

thereaper

2017-12-05, 03:38 PM

Tarquin is obviously not reasonable, but I interpreted him as unusually rational (until things started going off his script, of course). I suspect a lot of confusion stems from people conflating the two. He was ruthlessly logical in his methods of achieving his goals (and therefore quite rational), and quite entertaining along the way. At the same time, those goals were capital "E" Evil, making them obviously unreasonable.

As for Tarquin's killing of Nale...that's a bit more complex. I feel that both interpretations are valid, and probably went through his mind. He's fully capable of having multiple thoughts on a subject at once. Nale was refusing to play ball, and that was a problem. He had also put himself into a situation that demanded his death, and refused the only way out. He had also just killed a friend and useful asset, and demanded that he receive no special treatment. In the words of Redcloak, there could be only one rational response.

Kish

2017-12-05, 03:38 PM

But I just don't think you can reduce it that simply once you've given Tarquin one of the oldest human motivations there is to act.

It's quite easy for me to think that Tarquin is still willing to give Nale a chance based on the reasoning of "Well, at least I still have one of [Nale / Malack]; I wouldn't have chosen this, but I'm going to try to work with what I have left." But when Nale totally rejects him, then Nale becomes, as I said, just some guy who murdered Tarquin's best friend (among whatever other litany of crimes he's committed against Tarquin in the past).

If Nale hadn't killed Malack, I could, again, see Tarquin shrugging and saying "Whatever, just get off the Western Continent then. Without my protection you'll be dead in six months anyway."
Given that you acknowledge that Tarquin after killing Nale felt absolutely nothing toward Nale--"just some guy"--I'm puzzled by the assumption that he felt anything other than ego identification and desire for control toward him before doing so. Nale the potential pawn: Worth trying to make into a potential pawn. Nale who would never be a pawn: Dead.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-05, 03:41 PM

Man the alignment system is reeeeeeeally weird. It need not be. Pigeonholing is so often an error.

Reference the conversation between Elan and Tarquin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html):
Elan: I don't understand. You're Evil.
Tarquin: Even if I were to place myself within your limited and unrealistic "alignment system" why would that be a reason to harm you?

Tarquin's game is only strategic insofar as it concerns him, as he explains in the point about being a legendary bad buy, or a king (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html). He made an alliance of convenience with his adventuring party, and forged a "win win" proposition in the three way conflict between the kingdoms of Blood, Sweat and Tears. (Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania have always been at war, eh? Orwell, 1984). My take on Tarquin is "neutral evil" but we won't need to digress further on that.

Nale didn't take the whole lesson in, but he did take on board "it's all about me" as a guiding principle. That's what made the farewell scene, the put down from Elan about "it's not all about you" when Tarquin falls from the Mechane, so poignant on so many levels. From Tarquin, that message to Nale delivered with a dagger means something quite different than how Elan delivers it to Tarquin.

Did I cheer when Nale died? No.

I cheered when Durkon/Durkula surprises Nale and Zz'dtri with the "you two are the same old *****" and laid a little surprise attack on them. Nale was an annoying recurring villain who needed to stop recurring. Finally, that feature of the strip ended.

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 03:57 PM

If Nale hadn't killed Malack, I could, again, see Tarquin shrugging and saying "Whatever, just get off the Western Continent then. Without my protection you'll be dead in six months anyway."
You call that a satisfying arc resolution?! Are you insane?
Seriously though, Tarquin was never going to let someone who was "just cluttering up the obvious narrative arc between Elan and himself"
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html) live. Nale was dead regardless of Malack.

In the words of Redcloak, there could be only one rational response.
How about leaving any of the other four high-level adventurers who wants to avenge Malack deal with this ****?

Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania have always been at war, eh?
Thoughtcrime! Oceania is allied with Eastasia against Eurasia! It has always been! You are onee of Goldstein's lackeys!DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER!

Jasdoif

2017-12-05, 04:07 PM

It's quite easy for me to think that Tarquin is still willing to give Nale a chance based on the reasoning of "Well, at least I still have one of [Nale / Malack]; I wouldn't have chosen this, but I'm going to try to work with what I have left." But when Nale totally rejects him, then Nale becomes, as I said, just some guy who murdered Tarquin's best friend (among whatever other litany of crimes he's committed against Tarquin in the past).Exactly. Nale was Malack's killer throughout, but Tarquin didn't kill Nale over it immediately. Then Nale changed the situation by rejecting Tarquin's aid, a change Tarquin reacted to by murdering Nale.

Clearly, killing Malack wasn't itself enough of a reason for Tarquin to murder Nale; so I don't know why you'd say that was the reason Tarquin murdered Nale. (The other clear aspect there was that Nale's rejection of Tarquin's aid was impetus for murdering Nale; and a father viewing his son's desire for independence as cause for murder...does not speak well of Tarquin's fatherly qualities)

littlebum2002

2017-12-05, 04:40 PM

Only thing I'll quibble with you is your statement that Tarquin's a known liar. He scrupulously avoids saying anything that is untrue. He tells the truth, not the whole truth, but nothing but the truth.

This is true. He often leaves out just enough in his conversations where you will definitely get the wrong impression without him having to actually lie.

But I think there's another, bigger problem with Tarquin: sometimes he honestly thinks he's telling the truth. If I honestly think I'm the smartest person in the world and say so, is that a lie? I mean, I'm telling what I believe to be the truth, so it could be argued that it is not. By the same metric, if Tarquin honestly believes that he is a reasonable man who had no choice but to kill Nale, and says so, does that make him a liar? Or just delusional?

Ruck

2017-12-05, 04:42 PM

Given that you acknowledge that Tarquin after killing Nale felt absolutely nothing toward Nale--"just some guy"--I'm puzzled by the assumption that he felt anything other than ego identification and desire for control toward him before doing so. Nale the potential pawn: Worth trying to make into a potential pawn. Nale who would never be a pawn: Dead.

Maybe, maybe not, but what are we arguing here? How Tarquin feels or why Tarquin acts the way he does? He obviously felt friendship toward Malack, so I don't think he's incapable of feeling, monstrous as he is. I just think that even if you're right-- certainly reasonable enough-- there may have been a difference in how Tarquin responded to "Nale who would never be a pawn and wants to go his own way" and "Nale who would never be a pawn, wants to go his own way, but who also tried to overthrow me two years ago, and who just killed my best friend, which also puts my decades-long strategy to consolidate power in jeopardy." (The latter being who Nale actually was and what Nale actually did.)

Exactly. Nale was Malack's killer throughout, but Tarquin didn't kill Nale over it immediately. Then Nale changed the situation by rejecting Tarquin's aid, a change Tarquin reacted to by murdering Nale.

Clearly, killing Malack wasn't itself enough of a reason for Tarquin to murder Nale; so I don't know why you'd say that was the reason Tarquin murdered Nale. (The other clear aspect there was that Nale's rejection of Tarquin's aid was impetus for murdering Nale; and a father viewing his son's desire for independence as cause for murder...does not speak well of Tarquin's fatherly qualities)

I mean, Tarquin himself says "What do you think the price for killing my best friend was going to be?" I just don't think it's unreasonable to view Tarquin's thought process as "Well, he killed my best friend, but he's still my son, so I'm going to protect him... well, if he doesn't want to be my son anymore, then he has to face the consequences of his actions."

I want to say that I'm not defending Tarquin's character on the whole; I just find that in this particular action, he has a motivation which is extremely human and commonplace across times and cultures, as opposed to the control-freakishness which informs so much of what he does (including this, to a degree, sure, but I think the water is muddied by giving Tarquin a reason to kill Nale that's relateable outside his standard madness).

Jasdoif

2017-12-05, 04:51 PM

I just don't think it's unreasonable to view Tarquin's thought process as "Well, he killed my best friend, but he's still my son, so I'm going to protect him... well, if he doesn't want to be my son anymore, then he has to face the consequences of his actions."Right, Tarquin's thought process is "Now that I know he doesn't want to be the son I want him to be, kill him".

hroþila

2017-12-05, 04:56 PM

I'm not sure what part of what Tarquin has said or done suggests he cared all that much for Malack as a friend. Was it when he told him to get over his dead spawn because he was sick of hearing about it? Or when he was willing to let his death slip? Or when he misled him about his willingness to let him kill Nale? Or when he emphasized how much of an asset Malack was over any friendship? Or when he didn't show any emotion whatsoever over his death? His "killing my best friend" line is kinda drowned out by everything else, in my opinion.

I believe the other members of the Vector Legion are probably functional folks who actually care for each other, but Tarquin is different.

Jasdoif

2017-12-05, 05:02 PM

I'm not sure what part of what Tarquin has said or done suggests he cared all that much for Malack as a friend. Was it when he told him to get over his dead spawn because he was sick of hearing about it? Or when he was willing to let his death slip? Or when he misled him about his willingness to let him kill Nale? Or when he emphasized how much of an asset Malack was over any friendship? Or when he didn't show any emotion whatsoever over his death? His "killing my best friend" line is kinda drowned out by everything else, in my opinion.Well, it could say a lot about what Tarquin thinks friendship means.

Lord Torath

2017-12-05, 05:04 PM

This is true. He often leaves out just enough in his conversations where you will definitely get the wrong impression without him having to actually lie.

But I think there's another, bigger problem with Tarquin: sometimes he honestly thinks he's telling the truth. If I honestly think I'm the smartest person in the world and say so, is that a lie? I mean, I'm telling what I believe to be the truth, so it could be argued that it is not. By the same metric, if Tarquin honestly believes that he is a reasonable man who had no choice but to kill Nale, and says so, does that make him a liar? Or just delusional?Lying is usually defined as saying something you know not to be true. So by that definition, if Tarquin really believes he had no choice but to kill Nale, saying so would not be a lie on Tarquin's part. Most1 of the lie-detecting abilities in D&D would register that as "True".

1 The 2E psionic power Truthear will detect untruths even if the speaker thinks they're telling the truth on a natural roll of the Power Score.

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 05:06 PM

Maybe, maybe not, but what are we arguing here? How Tarquin feels or why Tarquin acts the way he does?
Isn't that the same thing? You do things because of the motions you feel.

He obviously felt friendship toward Malack.

But did he, though? Sure he says he does, but he also says he care for Elan. He doesn't spare a thought about how Malack feels about his dead spawns until he has a high-level vampire Cleric foaming at the mouth (it's actually blood just realizing this right now) channeling negative energy in his face, while the only person loyal to himaround is his accountant.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html)
Also the murder was motivated by revenge?
Let's take a look a Tarquin's view on proportionnate justice, shall we : Illegal immigration? The Arena (includes fights to the death, malnourishment, no disciplining prisoners and torture). Public urination ? The Arena. Demanding payment for (semi-accidentally) reuniting him with his lost son at one's own expense and/or doing a star wars joke ? The Arena. Escaping slavery? Nailed to a cross then burned alive. Murdering his best friend ? A dagger to the heart.
Seems lenient to me.

Kish

2017-12-05, 05:14 PM

Maybe, maybe not, but what are we arguing here? How Tarquin feels or why Tarquin acts the way he does? He obviously felt friendship toward Malack
Once again, your "obvious" is my "huh, how could anyone look at the strips and believe that?"

To use analogies that I've used before here, it is obvious to me that when his fancy vacuum cleaner attachment broke his good china, he was annoyed to have to accept that it would never function as he'd hoped, and that annoyance was his primary, very close to his sole, emotional reaction as he threw the attachment in the trash.

You outline the dichotomy but don't seem to recognize that I am firmly on the side of it you are not. I do not believe that "Nale who would never be a pawn" could ever have mapped in Tarquin's mind to anything other than "dead," further words unnecessary and irrelevant. Or for that matter that "Malack who is not my pawn" would map to anything other than "destroyed," though Tarquin, who excels at deluding himself, would say "best friend" or "beloved son" instead of acknowledging that those words, in his mouth, mean nothing more or less than "pawn."

I mean, Tarquin himself says "What do you think the price for killing my best friend was going to be?" I just don't think it's unreasonable to view Tarquin's thought process as "Well, he killed my best friend, but he's still my son, so I'm going to protect him... well, if he doesn't want to be my son anymore, then he has to face the consequences of his actions."
And a strip later, he's talking about how Nale cluttered up the narrative and expressing utter disregard for him.

You're not making him out to be more human. You're actually making him out to be less, because you're suggesting that, instead of viewing Nale from the perspective of a heartless control freak, he viewed him from the perspective of a loving father and then it somehow turned in one strip into the perspective of a heartless control freak*.

*Or you could say he's faking the disregard he shows for Nale in the strip right after he dies. That would be internally consistent, though it still wouldn't make any sense to me.

OPG

2017-12-05, 05:15 PM

I'm not sure what part of what Tarquin has said or done suggests he cared all that much for Malack as a friend.
My rebuttal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html).

I don't think it's out of the question for Tarquin to have friendships (although I have no doubt that they are rare at the most and not too intimate), but his narrative ambitions override everything. Which, in my opinion, is what makes him such a bastard.

Kish

2017-12-05, 05:17 PM

You realize that he was either being deceptive there or entirely gratuitously lying to Nale later, right? That he said himself that, even as he apologized to Malack's face, he fully intended that Malack would be forced to accept working with Nale again permanently?

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 05:32 PM

My rebuttal (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html).
*cough cough*

He doesn't spare a thought about how Malack feels about his dead spawns until he has a high-level vampire Cleric foaming at the mouth (it's actually blood just realizing this right now) channeling negative energy in his face, while the only person loyal to him around is his accountant.
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html)

hroþila

2017-12-05, 05:56 PM

Yeah, and even if he wasn't actually worried about his personal safety, he'd still be interested in appeasing Malack to retain his cooperation, defuse the situation and ensure his plan could continue. If it weren't for all the other instances of Tarquin's callous treatment of Malack, that scene on its own would indeed suggest an actual friendship, but within the wider context I don't think it refutes our claim.

King of Nowhere

2017-12-05, 06:31 PM

dps

2017-12-05, 06:43 PM

You do things because of the motions you feel.

Not unless you lack both rationality and impulse control. If everyone just went with their emotional responses, almost everyone would be in jail for assault (or worse). (I'm assuming you meant "emotions" here, not "motions".)

At any rate, Nale got what he deserved, and I was glad to see him finally dealt with. Debates about whether or not it should have been at Tarquin's hand, or what it showed about Tarquin don't change that.

EDIT: King of Nowere's post went up while I was typing, but what he posted sums up my opinion on the matter better than anything else in this thread.

Fyraltari

2017-12-05, 06:52 PM

All this is going on a tangent. I cheered when nale died because the guy totally deserved it. Heck, if he had been offed by being hit by a random asteroid, I'd have been happy. He was a good villain, in the sense that I hated him enough that I was happy to see him dead. Nobody is claiming that tarquin is a good guy or had good motivations here.
Well the first post was asking why people were shocked by Tarquin's actions, so yes questionning the morality of Tarquin is on-topic.

And seriously, moral event horizon? tarquin personally killed thousands of people, caused the deaths of many more, overthrew bastions of good. And killing one single mass murderer is somehow supposed to be worse than this? Just because nale was his son?
Nope, because he was a character we knew and we saw it. We never saw Tarquin do all this horrible things or they were to nameless spear-holders. Cold as it may be, we readers, will always have astonger emotional response to this than to that.

i don't buy the "family" argument. Helping members of one's family escape the consequences of their evil actions is not good nor sense of family, it is nepotism. If I had a son like nale - one who killed like 240 people just to frame an innocent man for their deaths - then I'd murder him if given the chance. I certainly wouldn't be all like "hey, you killed some 240 people, but you're my son, so that's ok!".
There are thos things called "law", "due process" and "justice" they entail that an individual shall not pass and execute judgment upon another without acting as a representative of a legitimate authority. If you kill your son for being a mass-murderer, as opposed to killing him to save someone he was trying to kill (legitimate defense) you are a murderer and need a trial.

I also don't buy the "he should have let the others do it". doing something through lackeys does not morally absolve one from responsibility. Asking lackeys to do something you won't soil your hands with is not only just as bad as doing it personally, it's also hypocrite.
Not asking the others to do it but let them do it. There's a difference. Nale wants no protection from Tarquin he gets no protection from Tarquin. I mean he could still try to protect him or something but at that point that clearly was not an option anymore.

No, killing nale himself was pretty much the only good thing tarquin ever did, if for the wrong reasons, and I was cheering at the monitor when it happened. I wanted to slap elan for being sad. Especially since elan showed much less compunction about killing mooks who were much more innocent than nale could ever hope to be. by slaying random soldiers by the dozen (or singing to help haley do it, which is the same) and then not wanting nale's death, elan was also being an hypocrite, though I cut him a lot of slack because he's not smart enough to realize it.
That means absolutely nothing for tarquin''s character.
"Is a good thing still good when it is done for the wrong reason ?" Is a very interesting question with no easy answer. Yet when that thing is murder you can firmly place me in the "No" camp. Murder is never good. Killing sometimes is, not murder.
Please show me one example of Elan actually murdering anyone. Murdering as in cold-blood killing, not killing in battle. Elan is no hypocrite : he felt sorry for Crystal, he felt sorry for Therkla, he felt sorry for Kubota and he felt sorry for Nale. Consistent.

EDIT:

Not unless you lack both rationality and impulse control. If everyone just went with their emotional responses, almost everyone would be in jail for assault (or worse). (I'm assuming you meant "emotions" here, not "motions".)

Yeah my laptop keyboard is dying a warrior's death, fighting till the end no matter how unresponsive the keys get. May the Valkyries carry him to Valhalla. That and I type way to fast and since it's in English and not French, every word has a red underline, ugh).

Empathy, anxiety, fear of shame/punishment, doubt, etc these are all emotions. Inhibitions are as emotive as you can get. Or do you think of Kant every time you don't punch anyone in the face despite wanting to?

hroþila

2017-12-05, 06:59 PM

This is wildly off-topic, but Elan *is* a hypocrite, and he knows it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0784.html). :smallwink:

Anyway, I don't think anyone in this thread defended Nale. But the thread isn't so much about Nale, it's about Tarquin. I can easily picture a scene where a LG parent decided to kill their murderous and unrepentant offspring, but it would be very different from a scene with Tarquin in it.

King of Nowhere

2017-12-05, 07:28 PM

Nope, because he was a character we knew and we saw it. We never saw Tarquin do all this horrible things or they were to nameless spear-holders. Cold as it may be, we readers, will always have astonger emotional response to this than to that.

Ok, I see your point. We see it, so it looks worse to most readers. I have a very analitical mind, so to me it does not feel worse, and for the purpose of morality it should not count whether we see it on screen or not, but I understand why on most readers it has a different impact

There are thos things called "law", "due process" and "justice" they entail that an individual shall not pass and execute judgment upon another without acting as a representative of a legitimate authority. If you kill your son for being a mass-murderer, as opposed to killing him to save someone he was trying to kill (legitimate defense) you are a murderer and need a trial.

Yes, I accept that. In this scenario, after doing the deed I'd call the police myself. I believe that our common conceptions of morality are good for dealing with everyday life and common bad people, not with the likes of nale or xykon. It is something that I would consider good only because of the sheer magnitude of what nale does. ALso, the fact that nale is very powerful and there is no safe prison to contain him for long

Not asking the others to do it but let them do it. There's a difference. Nale wants no protection from Tarquin he gets no protection from Tarquin. I mean he could still try to protect him or something but at that point that clearly was not an option anymore.

I still would call telling the others "ok, he's yours" is almost the same as doing the deed himself. A bit more karmic, since retribution comes from the hands of those he slighted, but that's the most I can give. I'd certainly not say that tarquin hadn't had a main role in nale's death if it had happened that way. I believe people are responsible of what they let happen by inaction as much as of what they do by action.

"Is a good thing still good when it is done for the wrong reason ?" Is a very interesting question with no easy answer. Yet when that thing is murder you can firmly place me in the "No" camp. Murder is never good. Killing sometimes is, not murder.
Please show me one example of Elan actually murdering anyone. Murdering as in cold-blood killing, not killing in battle. Elan is no hypocrite : he felt sorry for Crystal, he felt sorry for Therkla, he felt sorry for Kubota and he felt sorry for Nale. Consistent.

I never said that tarquin did a good action, just that it brought a good outcome. And I don't want to open the can of worms of whether it would have been a good action if a paladin with the best intentionss had murdered nale; that kind of topic would get locked anyway.
As for elan, he felt sorry for characters with names, not for the random mooks. but I'm not faulting him. he really does care, but his flair for theatrics won't let him see the mooks as full people. Still, nobody is perfect; as flaws go, it is a minor and understandable one. Elan is no less good for being swayed by character status when passing moral judgments.

Jasdoif

2017-12-05, 07:53 PM

There are thos things called "law", "due process" and "justice" they entail that an individual shall not pass and execute judgment upon another without acting as a representative of a legitimate authority. If you kill your son for being a mass-murderer, as opposed to killing him to save someone he was trying to kill (legitimate defense) you are a murderer and need a trial.

Not asking the others to do it but let them do it. There's a difference. Nale wants no protection from Tarquin he gets no protection from Tarquin. I mean he could still try to protect him or something but at that point that clearly was not an option anymore.It's probably important to note that in the Empire of Blood, Tarquin is the law. All those soldiers who'd rather fight Roy than take a swing at one of Tarquin's sons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html), demonstrate how little would happen to Nale without Tarquin's assent/approval/arrangement.

Gift Jeraff

2017-12-05, 08:24 PM

Nah, Tarquin sucks. Nale is more enjoyable.

Keltest

2017-12-05, 09:01 PM

"Fatherly considerations"? It would have been fatherly to be proud of Nale's will and desire to be his own man. Tarquin only offered him aleash there.

When you said fight do you mean when he killed Malack or when he told Tarquin? Because his killing Malack worked and he would have survived if it was not for the HPoH. And when he told Tarquin, I guess he was not thinking at all. He has a history of poor pattern recognition and underestimating his opponents (what WAS his plan to deal with Xykon seriously ?). Plus it was a terrible day, he just managed to reach a goal he had since childhood and his despised father was trying to undermine him again. Of course he was going to gloat.

I meant the latter. He didn't just defy Tarquin, he rubbed it in Tarquin's face that he did it and planned to continue to do it. He was trying to force a reaction from Tarquin. I just cant understand what he thought Tarquin would do. Youre right of course that Nale has a rather poor grasp of his overall capabilities, but Tarquin had just deliberately maneuvered himself into a position of (seemingly) overwhelming strength. That's not really a good time to pick a fight.

pearl jam

2017-12-06, 12:28 AM

In the vernacular, maybe. But it is not an actual lie, and therefore in precise language it should not be called lying.

Put another way, we give different names to the act of taking someone's life. Manslaughter is not the same as murder. We do this because it is understood that the circumstances change the moral gravity of the act, even if the end result is the same.

Equally, lying and misinforming have the same result, but the moral implications are different. Now, you can of course add disclaimer and qualifiers every time, but isn't it easier to use different words for different concepts? But what we shouldn't do is equate them. They are not the same.

Grey Wolf

I generally agree with your contributions to most threads, but I have to disagree with this one.

Lying by commission and lying by omission are both very well-established concepts and both are understood to be equally valid methods of lying: deliberately deceiving others through your words.

The fact that D&D rules might handle telling a falsehood (commission) vs. a deliberate half truth (omission) differently is related to how they've defined law vs. chaos rather than a moral one and doesn't make either one any more deserving of the mantle of "lie" than the other.

Whether you're telling a falsehood or a half-truth, it's the intent that makes it a lie, though even unintentionally doing either has sometimes been defined as lying as well. (You've made a liar out of me!)

***
edited for grammar

Kish

2017-12-06, 01:23 AM

DemonRoach

2017-12-06, 01:42 AM

So wait, when Shojo let everybody assume he was a paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0289.html) or when he did not tell the paladins about his hiring the order that was lawful of him?
Man the alignment system is reeeeeeeally weird.

Shojo is self confessed as not being Lawful.

unbeliever536

2017-12-06, 01:49 AM

I generally agree with your contributions to most threads, but I have to disagree with this one.

Lying by commission and lying by omission are both very well-established concepts and both are understood to be equally valid methods of lying: deliberately deceiving others through your words.

The fact that D&D rules might handle telling a falsehood (commission) vs. a deliberate half truth (omission) differently is related to how they've defined law vs. chaos rather than a moral one and doesn't make either one any more deserving of the mantle of "lie" than the other.

Whether you're telling a falsehood or a half-truth, it's the intent that makes it a lie, though even unintentionally doing either has sometimes been defined as lying as well. (You've made a liar out of me!)

***
edited for grammar

The key difference is in what you intend, not necessarily how you go about it. There is a genuine difference between causing someone to believe a falsehood (ie lying) and not ensuring that someone has a perfectly accurate picture of things (plausibly negligent, but in general totally fine). Lying by omission is a slippery concept (and one for which I don't have a lot of respect) because it elides the difference between not telling someone something, for which one might have any number of reasons, and deliberately framing nominally true statements in a way that creates a false impression in order to avoid a "literal" lie.

I think Tarquin is mostly not lying because he's deluded himself into believing the nonsense he uses to justify himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html), but there are other interpretations available.

Knaight

2017-12-06, 06:15 AM

Nope, because he was a character we knew and we saw it. We never saw Tarquin do all this horrible things or they were to nameless spear-holders. Cold as it may be, we readers, will always have astonger emotional response to this than to that.

We met Amun-Zora, personally. We met Ganji and Enor, personally. We saw Haley and V lead a slave escape which involved seeing a fair few slaves directly then saw literal two hundred foot flaming letters made when Tarquin burned them alive.

Tarquin was an obvious monster well before he killed Nale, and what makes killing Nale notable isn't that Nale is a character we knew so much as that Nale is Tarquin's son, with murdering your own child being something generally seen as particularly vile.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-06, 07:35 AM

I think Tarquin sees a huge, important difference between "explicitly speaking an untruth" and "everything I said was true, even though the carefully planned result was that you wound up thinking something untrue."

I also think he's just about the only character in the comic who does.

O-Chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html) also employs deliberate misinformation, but of course for completely different reasons. I vaguely recall Hinjo maybe employing it too on occasion (maybe in O-Chul's story?).

In a world with Circles of Truth and similar magic, I stand by my statement that misinformation is different from lies.

Grey Wolf

ti'esar

2017-12-06, 08:17 AM

Tarquin was an obvious monster well before he killed Nale, and what makes killing Nale notable isn't that Nale is a character we knew so much as that Nale is Tarquin's son, with murdering your own child being something generally seen as particularly vile.

I don't think it's just that - more that we had specifically been led to believe that the one real positive trait Tarquin had was a capability to care for his family and friends (in a twisted way, sure, but as you say we already knew he was quite Evil). His unflinching slaughter of Nale - together, IMO, with his bizarre reaction to the death of Malack in the same strip - demonstrated that wasn't really true on any meaningful level.

thereaper

2017-12-06, 08:39 AM

I didn't really think it was so much that he didn't care about either of them at all, but rather that he placed other things (specifically, his own ego) far above them. Note his line about "Putting aside the years of friendship". His priorities are way out of wack.

O-Chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html) also employs deliberate misinformation, but of course for completely different reasons. I vaguely recall Hinjo maybe employing it too on occasion (maybe in O-Chul's story?).

In a world with Circles of Truth and similar magic, I stand by my statement that misinformation is different from lies.

Grey Wolf

The alignment system, as depicted in this strip, does seem to distinguish between misinformation and outright lies. The question of whether such a distinction matters in the real world would be outside the scope of what the forum rules allow.

Fyraltari

2017-12-06, 09:31 AM

It's probably important to note that in the Empire of Blood, Tarquin is the law. All those soldiers who'd rather fight Roy than take a swing at one of Tarquin's sons (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0918.html), demonstrate how little would happen to Nale without Tarquin's assent/approval/arrangement.True, They got into this situation in part because Tarquin was Evil and in charge which makes his theoritical good actions harder to devise. I guess he could send him to someone else's he wronged like the Azurites. Eh, that would not work. I agree that there is no real good course of actions (in good part due to how surreal the situation is). But I stand by my claim that a father murdering his own son, especially without the slightest display of emotion, is deeply, fundamentaly wrong.

I meant the latter. He didn't just defy Tarquin, he rubbed it in Tarquin's face that he did it and planned to continue to do it. He was trying to force a reaction from Tarquin. I just cant understand what he thought Tarquin would do. Youre right of course that Nale has a rather poor grasp of his overall capabilities, but Tarquin had just deliberately maneuvered himself into a position of (seemingly) overwhelming strength. That's not really a good time to pick a fight.He was expecting it to go like it always did with Tarquin not acting against him, I guess his ego blinded him to the privilege his birthgave him and made him thinkhis survival was only due to his own actions. Hell, that's even what Tarquin says immediately afterward.
This is a trend with villain death in this comic : Tsukiko, Nale, Bozzok aand Crystal all died because they kept acting toward someone as they always did (three case out of 4, spitting verbal abuse at that) and expected them to react as they always did (that is to say, not) despite the obvious change in the situation.

Shojo is self confessed as not being Lawful.Does not mean he can't act lawful from time to time, especially if he is Neutral.

We met Amun-Zora, personally. We met Ganji and Enor, personally. We saw Haley and V lead a slave escape which involved seeing a fair few slaves directly then saw literal two hundred foot flaming letters made when Tarquin burned them alive.

Tarquin was an obvious monster well before he killed Nale, and what makes killing Nale notable isn't that Nale is a character we knew so much as that Nale is Tarquin's son, with murdering your own child being something generally seen as particularly vile.These weren't the unseen acts and nameless spear-holders I was talking about (though the slaves are nameless spear-holders)
Those are :
And seriously, moral event horizon? tarquin personally killed thousands of people, caused the deaths of many more, overthrew bastions of good. And killing one single mass murderer is somehow supposed to be worse than this? Just because nale was his son?

I never said that tarquin did a good action, just that it brought a good outcome. Yes, you did :
No, killing nale himself was pretty much the only good thing tarquin ever did, if for the wrong reasons, and I was cheering at the monitor when it happened. I wanted to slap elan for being sad. Especially since elan showed much less compunction about killing mooks who were much more innocent than nale could ever hope to be.
Emphasis mine.

O-Chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0663.html) also employs deliberate misinformation, but of course for completely different reasons. I vaguely recall Hinjo maybe employing it too on occasion (maybe in O-Chul's story?).

In a world with Circles of Truth and similar magic, I stand by my statement that misinformation is different from lies.

Grey WolfI guess they are techincally different, and maybe different on the Chaos-Law axis which is not relevant when discussing morality. Wait why are we discussing lying again?
For what it's worth here is what the Giant thinks of themorality of lying (many thanks to our bananarchivist)
Taking advantage of someone is neither Good nor Evil, inherently. What matters is what you take advantage of them for.
While I don't really agree with that position, I think that the O-Chul/Tarquin contrast is a good example of what he means : Tarquin deceived Amun-Zora so that he could sleep with her while her city was being sacked and her husband assassinated : Evil ; O-Chul deceived Hinjo as not to needlessly tarnish further the memory of a deceased colleague who used to be his order's finest warrior : Goodish.

I don't think it's just that - more that we had specifically been led to believe that the one real positive trait Tarquin had was a capability to care for his family and friends (in a twisted way, sure, but as you say we already knew he was quite Evil). His unflinching slaughter of Nale - together, IMO, with his bizarre reaction to the death of Malack in the same strip - demonstrated that wasn't really true on any meaningful level.Basically this.

Sinewmire

2017-12-06, 09:49 AM

I found Nale's death shocking, because

A) I'd been set up with the narrative expectation that Nale, as a cartoonish recurring villain, would keep recurring forever. Richard* Dastardly never dies in his car crashes.

B) Tarquin has gone out of his way to help Elan and Nale, Nale especially, weasel their way out of repercussions for their actions in order to ensnare them further. It was quite a surprising turn for him to stop plotting and just stab the guy. Very sudden!

*blasted swear filter! :smallfurious:

BaronOfHell

2017-12-06, 10:23 AM

Nale's goals chronologically:
1) Gather enough power to overthrow Tarquin
2) Destroy Elan and friends
3) Take over the world via the Gate business

Possible goal before that was to destroy Malack. I don't think he ever gives up any particular goal, it is more that when something else takes his attention the previous goals takes a back seat until opportunity presents itself.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-06, 10:54 AM

I found Nale's death shocking, because

A) . Richard* Dastardly never dies in his car crashes.

*blasted swear filter! :smallfurious: Dikc_Dastardly works. (Man, whacky racers ... there's an old reference! :)

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-06, 11:02 AM

Dikc_Dastardly works. (Man, whacky racers ... there's an old reference! :)

So does **** Dastardly.

GW

Jasdoif

2017-12-06, 12:28 PM

True, They got into this situation in part because Tarquin was Evil and in charge which makes his theoritical good actions harder to devise. I guess he could send him to someone else's he wronged like the Azurites. Eh, that would not work. I agree that there is no real good course of actions (in good part due to how surreal the situation is).Tarquin arranging to send Nale off to the Azurites, or to a jurisdiction of the Empire of Blood that didn't know Nale was Tarquin's son, or to a jurisdiction of the Empire of Sweat/Tears/etc. that viewed Nale being Tarquin's son as a motivating factor for punishment; wouldn't happen without Tarquin's approval of the transfer.

There aren't many scenarios where Tarquin isn't responsible for Nale's punishment; Tarquin's too high up in a system responsive to his control for any "external" decisions not to have his approval before they're carried out. (The obvious exception would be a group of high-level characters forcibly removing Nale from Tarquin's custody for their own reasons, Tarquin and friends company attempting to get Nale back, and Tarquin failing; like if Julio had shown up sooner and the Order grabbed Nale for...some reason.)

But I stand by my claim that a father murdering his own son, especially without the slightest display of emotion, is deeply, fundamentaly wrong.Well, obviously. But so's a father encouraging someone else to murder his child for him. There's not really a superior option between the two.

Legato Endless

2017-12-06, 12:38 PM

"Fatherly considerations"? It would have been fatherly to be proud of Nale's will and desire to be his own man. Tarquin only offered him aleash there.

Would it have? Nale's desire to be his own man may have started off sympathetically, but had at that point long devolved into egotistical pettiness and homicidal grudges. An obsessive cry for validation from everyone doesn't usually impress a lot of fathers, even those who aren't tyrannical control freaks.

I'm not arguing that justifies what followed, just that Nale's cry of machismo would merit, from a theoretically healthier parent, wow that's maladaptive. Let's get you some counseling.

King of Nowhere

2017-12-06, 12:44 PM

Yes, you did :
Emphasis mine.

No, killing nale himself was pretty much the only good thing tarquin ever did

*Sigh*
king of nowhere makes a note to himself about the future need, when writing in this forum, to clearly differentiate between an action that is Good within the alignment system and one that was sorely needed and/or causes the world to become a better place

Doug Lampert

2017-12-06, 01:06 PM

*Sigh*
king of nowhere makes a note to himself about the future need, when writing in this forum, to clearly differentiate between an action that is Good within the alignment system and one that was sorely needed and/or causes the world to become a better place

I almost always use Good and Evil when referencing the alignment system, and good and evil when just discussing the merits of an action or result. I'm fairly sure this is not unique to me.

Which is to say, I found your statement fine and did not read it as a claim that killing Nale was an aligned act.

Edited to add: I note that above you in fact capitalize when indicating the alignment system. So you are using this indicator.

But then this thread is thick with what I consider pointless quibbling, "Oh! How horrible that Tarquin killed his own son, he should totally have arranged instead for someone else to do it and kept his own hands clean, because our objections are founded on squeamishness not morality", or "Oh! But it's totally different from the feast/arena/"justice system"/slaves/invasion/whatever because Nale had a NAME."

Fyraltari

2017-12-06, 01:12 PM

Tarquin arranging to send Nale off to the Azurites, or to a jurisdiction of the Empire of Blood that didn't know Nale was Tarquin's son, or to a jurisdiction of the Empire of Sweat/Tears/etc. that viewed Nale being Tarquin's son as a motivating factor for punishment; wouldn't happen without Tarquin's approval of the transfer.

There aren't many scenarios where Tarquin isn't responsible for Nale's punishment; Tarquin's too high up in a system responsive to his control for any "external" decisions not to have his approval before they're carried out. (The obvious exception would be a group of high-level characters forcibly removing Nale from Tarquin's custody for their own reasons, Tarquin and friends company attempting to get Nale back, and Tarquin failing; like if Julio had shown up sooner and the Order grabbed Nale for...some reason.)
Agreed

Well, obviously. But so's a father encouraging someone else to murder his child for him. There's not really a superior option between the two.
Wait a minute who said anything about "encouraging anyone" ? All I said was that, Tarky could have accepted Nale's demand of letting him solve his problems his way of fail to do so. The fact that would have meant Nale's death in the next two minutes with a 99.9999999999998140573% of certainty does mean it is only marginally better, but it still is in my eyes.

Would it have? Nale's desire to be his own man may have started off sympathetically, but had at that point long devolved into egotistical pettiness and homicidal grudges. An obsessive cry for validation from everyone doesn't usually impress a lot of fathers, even those who aren't tyrannical control freaks.

I'm not arguing that justifies what followed, just that Nale's cry of machismo would merit, from a theoretically healthier parent, wow that's maladaptive. Let's get you some counseling.
Err, Nale here just said that he didn't wnat any "hand-out", "nepotism" or "pity" from Tarquin nor to be a "cog in [his] latest oh-so-clever scheme" that is neither egotistical pettiness nor an homicidal grudge. He has those for sure but Tarquin never had a problem with them.

*Sigh*
king of nowhere makes a note to himself about the future need, when writing in this forum, to clearly differentiate between an action that is Good within the alignment system and one that was sorely needed and/or causes the world to become a better place

Wait I'm lost. Do you mean that the definition of Good within the alignment system and Good according to morality are supposed to be diferent ?

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-06, 01:16 PM

Wait I'm lost. Do you mean that the definition of Good within the alignment system and Good according to morality are supposed to be diferent ?

Err... yes? An Evil character murdering another Evil character for evil reasons is Evil, but nevertheless improved the world by slightly reducing the number of Evil people in it, and therefore was a good thing.

Grey Wolf

Jasdoif

2017-12-06, 01:49 PM

Wait a minute who said anything about "encouraging anyone" ? All I said was that, Tarky could have accepted Nale's demand of letting him solve his problems his way of fail to do so. The fact that would have meant Nale's death in the next two minutes with a 99.9999999999998140573% of certainty does mean it is only marginally better, but it still is in my eyes. As mentioned, Tarquin runs the Empire of Blood (at least until the next Vector Legion tri-state-mix comes along); the same mentality behind "don't fight Tarquin's son or your entire family's dead, that's how Tarquin does things" would stand for Nale unless Tarquin said he wasn't stopping from Nale from getting killed...at which point the mentality would go "not keeping Nale from getting killed means he wants Nale killed, that's how Tarquin does things"; it's a side effect of Tarquin having an imperial army trained to obey his whims.

Laurin might not care about Tarquin's approval, and might be willing to murder Nale in front of his father and brother...but then we're at Tarquin refusing to intercede like he clearly thinks he could still do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html), and/or making himself the center of attention by vocally expressing his assent like he did before (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html); and we're back to encouraging it to happen by actively not trying to prevent it. I don't see where "hey, I fully believe this will get you killed, and I'm going to do everything I can to ensure it does, but at least I'm not killing you personally" gets measurable traction in the "well it's not as bad" category.

Doing something other than getting Nale killed, directly or indirectly, would've reflected better on Tarquin...or, well, the Tarquin-shaped character we'd be talking about, since I don't think he'd be the same character at that point.

Fyraltari

2017-12-06, 01:52 PM

But then this thread is thick with what I consider pointless quibbling, "Oh! How horrible that Tarquin killed his own son, he should totally have arranged instead for someone else to do it and kept his own hands clean, because our objections are founded on squeamishness not morality", or "Oh! But it's totally different from the feast/arena/"justice system"/slaves/invasion/whatever because Nale had a NAME."
Yop of course that's 110% what I said. I totally believe that sitting idly while a murder happen near you is completely moral and have never made any suggestion to go through a judicial procedure or qualified that inaction as "only marginally better" than doing the murder oneself and instead said that Tarquin should have ordered Lurin to do the kill and then cheered and served lemonade while she was doing it.
I also deeply believe that justice is conditionnal and centered on apersonnal point of view and not for example that emotionnal responses are function of how well we knew the people involved and on wether or not we witnessed the event because they are by nature hypocritical. That'd be crazy. Now excuse me, I seem to have straw falling from my trousers for some reason.
Really though I feel like I have made my position clear and won't explain itany further.

Err... yes? An Evil character murdering another Evil character for evil reasons is Evil, but nevertheless improved the world by slightly reducing the number of Evil people in it, and therefore was a good thing.

Grey Wolf
Well that's a point of view. I don't share it but I can understand it.

Lord

2017-12-06, 03:04 PM

Here is the thing:
Nale is a clear and present danger to everyone around him. He has committed mass murder for little to no reason. It is thus a very good argument that killing him is for the benefit of everyone else.
Nale had just murdered an important head of state. Which means that he really should die by legal standards.
Nale has just clearly demonstrated he never intends to reform or even allow his murderous excesses to be channeled into a productive form.
Tarquin killing Nale was a Lawful act, and frankly, given what a disgusting excuse for a human being Nale was, I'd say it was at worst a neutral act and that is only if we say that killing someone can never be a good act.

One might argue that there is literally no good reason for Nale to leave that place alive. No neutral character would have let Nale walk after what he pulled if they had an ounce of sense. Nor would any good character.
The simple reality is that Tarquin made the right decision, from a pragmatic, a moral and a lawful perspective. Maybe it wasn't a good act, but killing Nale was really the only rational response to what he had just done. Anything else would just be asking to be stabbed in the back later.

And Tarquin still tried to save his son's life, whatever his motivations for doing so. Frankly trying to save Nale after what he did could easily be considered a good act. Certainly it is an act of incomprehensible mercy. Mercy is a good quality.

Jasdoif

2017-12-06, 03:41 PM

And Tarquin still tried to save his son's life, whatever his motivations for doing so. Frankly trying to save Nale after what he did could easily be considered a good act. Certainly it is an act of incomprehensible mercy.Mercy is forgiveness: giving someone a second chance, without adding strings, even when they don't deserve it. It is not intensifying the conflict to "Now, you'll obey me or you'll die".

Come to think of it, Tarquin and Nale plays out a lot like Malack and Durkon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0872.html). Malack made demands of Durkon, Durkon refused to accomodate Malack, Malack didn't see the worth of a situation where an independent Durkon was alive, and Malack killed Durkon over it. (It took Malack a lot longer to pull it off, because Durkon is nowhere near as foolhardy as Nale)

Kish

2017-12-06, 03:46 PM

[snip]
Yes, congratulations, if you willfully ignore everything about the situation except "Nale was evil" and "Tarquin didn't kill him until he did" you can spin it so that Tarquin showed "mercy" somehow. You won't have anything close to the comic, but you'll have...what you apparently want to see.

(I especially liked the parts where it was important that Nale was a "danger to everyone around him" and "a disgusting excuse for a human being" but the vampire who bragged that he would turn the entire continent into an abattoir was just "an important head of state.")

Cizak

2017-12-06, 03:52 PM

Put another way, we give different names to the act of taking someone's life. Manslaughter is not the same as murder. We do this because it is understood that the circumstances change the moral gravity of the act, even if the end result is the same.f

The flaw in this comparison is that murder vs manslaughter is all about intent vs no intent, whereas lying and deliberate misinforming both have intent.

Err... yes? An Evil character murdering another Evil character for evil reasons is Evil, but nevertheless improved the world by slightly reducing the number of Evil people in it, and therefore was a good thing.

That's incredibly debatable.

Nale had just murdered an important head of state. Which means that he really should die by legal standards.

Depends what legal standards you go after, and without pushing this into forbidden real world politics discussion, I'll just say that the Empire of Blood's legal standards are far from desirable.

One might argue that there is literally no good reason for Nale to leave that place alive.
≠Excecute him on the spot.

The simple reality is that Tarquin made the right decision, from a pragmatic, a moral and a lawful perspective.

Not nearly as simple as you're making it out to be, since it's very debatable.

Maybe it wasn't a good act, but killing Nale was really the only rational response to what he had just done.

Not even close.

And Tarquin still tried to save his son's life, whatever his motivations for doing so. Frankly trying to save Nale after what he did could easily be considered a good act. Certainly it is an act of incomprehensible mercy. Mercy is a good quality.

He tried to "save" Nale's life on the condition that Nale's life from that point on played out to Tarquin's expectations and desires. I wouldn't call anything Tarquin did on the brink of that crater "merciful", much less "good".

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-06, 04:09 PM

The flaw in this comparison is that murder vs manslaughter is all about intent vs no intent, whereas lying and deliberate misinforming both have intent.
No. The difference is between premeditation and lack thereof - i.e. methodology. The result is the same, but we don't use the same word for both because it is considered that planning a murder is worse than simply killing someone in the heat of the moment (but in both cases, there was intent to kill; one was just longer lasting). A quick google check suggests that you may be thinking of the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. So, in an effort to be perfectly clear, I was thinking of voluntary manslaughter. "Involuntary manslaughter" seems to be what I would call "an accident with loss of life", not murder at all.

Equally, the result of lying versus deliberate misinformation is the same, but they employ different methods to get the victim to believe the wrong thing, and thus are not so equivalent as to warrant the same word.

That's incredibly debatable.

... but not so debatable you are capable of giving a counterargument?

Grey Wolf

Ruck

2017-12-06, 04:16 PM

But did he, though? Sure he says he does, but he also says he care for Elan. He doesn't spare a thought about how Malack feels about his dead spawns until he has a high-level vampire Cleric foaming at the mouth (it's actually blood just realizing this right now) channeling negative energy in his face, while the only person loyal to him around is his accountant. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html)

Once again, your "obvious" is my "huh, how could anyone look at the strips and believe that?"

Hmm, you guys have a point. I gave him credit for being sincere, especially when he calls Malack his best friend while he stabs Nale, because if he doesn't believe that, he would just say "My most valuable asset" or something similar. But one of the whole points of the last section of book 5 is that who Tarquin thinks he is and who he really is are vastly different. (I don't think Tarquin is lying when he says that about Malack; I do think it makes sense that he's something of a sociopath who doesn't really get relationships except as tools to his ends.)

You outline the dichotomy but don't seem to recognize that I am firmly on the side of it you are not. I do not believe that "Nale who would never be a pawn" could ever have mapped in Tarquin's mind to anything other than "dead," further words unnecessary and irrelevant.
See, that's what's interesting to me. I actually do wonder if "Nale who would never be a pawn but also didn't try to overthrow Tarquin, murder Malack and his spawn, and god knows what else" would get a different reaction from Tarquin. I don't know, because we'll never see that version of the story. Because Nale would have to be an entirely different character to have arrived at this point otherwise.

You're not making him out to be more human. You're actually making him out to be less, because you're suggesting that, instead of viewing Nale from the perspective of a heartless control freak, he viewed him from the perspective of a loving father and then it somehow turned in one strip into the perspective of a heartless control freak*.

*Or you could say he's faking the disregard he shows for Nale in the strip right after he dies. That would be internally consistent, though it still wouldn't make any sense to me.
No, I don't think he's faking anything. I think he can contain both, and more. You leave out "Guy who wants to avenge his best friend" and "Member of a conspiracy to gain long-lasting political power, who wants to protect said conspiracy and power from a rogue element" as elements of Tarquin's character; both are plausible reasons to kill Nale.

I guess the revenge factor is interesting to me because it is the motivation that tracks much more with the rest of humanity than Tarquin's usual obsession with rules and story. The fact that Nale is a homicidal force of destruction who exists to cause misery to others in service of his ego means I didn't really shed any tears for him, either.

I meant the latter. He didn't just defy Tarquin, he rubbed it in Tarquin's face that he did it and planned to continue to do it. He was trying to force a reaction from Tarquin. I just cant understand what he thought Tarquin would do. Youre right of course that Nale has a rather poor grasp of his overall capabilities, but Tarquin had just deliberately maneuvered himself into a position of (seemingly) overwhelming strength. That's not really a good time to pick a fight.

Yeah, I mean, this too. Nale basically said "I killed your friend, I want nothing to do with you," and given Nale's history it's probably safe to assume "and I'm going to continue screwing with your plans when it serves my ego." There were practical reasons to kill him, whether or not they were at the top of Tarquin's list.

Cizak

2017-12-06, 04:19 PM

No. The difference is between premeditation and lack thereof - i.e. methodology. The result is the same, but we don't use the same word for both because it is considered that planning a murder is worse than simply killing someone in the heat of the moment (but in both cases, there was intent to kill; one was just longer lasting). A quick google check suggests that you may be thinking of the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. So, in an effort to be perfectly clear, I was thinking of voluntary manslaughter. "Involuntary manslaughter" seems to be what I would call "an accident with loss of life", not murder at all.

Equally, the result of lying versus deliberate misinformation is the same, but they employ different methods to get the victim to believe the wrong thing, and thus are not so equivalent as to warrant the same word.

Conceded.

... but not so debatable you are capable of giving a counterargument?

Capable? Sure, I just wasn't that up to getting into it. My point was more that it's not nearly clear-cut or factual enough to warrant an "Err, yes?" response.

King of Nowhere

2017-12-06, 04:45 PM

without getting into the debate of killing for good or evil reasons, one can make a lot of examples of non-good actions resulting in good, or non-evil actions resulting in evil.
For example, a doctor who cares nothing for his patients but works for the money is saving lives. He's not good, he's not performing a good action, but he's improving the world anyway. A doctor who overcharges his patients and intentionally causes all sort of collateral problems in his patients so that they'll be forced to come back to him is evil, and he's doing evil actions. His patients are still better off for his ministrations, though, so his evil actions are still doing some good.
On the other side, having mercy is a good quality, and yet elan having mercy of nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0069.html) resulted in 417 people getting killed (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0363.html).

so yes, of course good actions can bring evil and evil actions can bring good. there would be no need to debate morality if it was actually simple and clear-cut.

Jasdoif

2017-12-06, 04:50 PM

See, that's what's interesting to me. I actually do wonder if "Nale who would never be a pawn but also didn't try to overthrow Tarquin, murder Malack and his spawn, and god knows what else" would get a different reaction from Tarquin. I don't know, because we'll never see that version of the story. Because Nale would have to be an entirely different character to have arrived at this point otherwise.Well....

With Tarquin, it is important to keep in mind that the provocation for threatening to murder Haley and chop Elan's hand off is that they don't want to escape in the exact manner he would prefer. He wants them to escape, and they were in the process of escaping, but they weren't doing it right.Given that Nale helped Tarquin with the "family business" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html) in the first place, Hypothetical-Nale would probably be in for a hard time; I don't think Tarquin would allow Nale into his narrative without a specific "pawn" role in mind for him to play.

Whether that hard time would cost Nale a hand instead of a heart, I don't know; "God knows what else" covers way too much ground.

Keltest

2017-12-06, 04:54 PM

As far as it goes, I think had Nale not gone out of his way to antagonize Tarquin to his face, and if he hadn't killed Malack, Tarquin probably would have let Nale go off and live his life. He wasn't making much effort to locate Nale until Nale went and came back to the Empire of Blood like an idiot and started messing with Tarquin again. As it was, he basically declared his enmity to Tarquin, as opposed to being a neutral force that's just out there, and that is going to prompt a much more extreme response.

brian 333

2017-12-06, 05:25 PM

I think a key something is missing in the minds of most of the posters in this thread: Nale was not Elan's evil opposite, no more than Thog was for Roy. While The Giant played up the Evil Opposites theme brilliantly, I noticed that Nale was more like Roy's opposite than Elan's. More to the point, look how well Elan and Thog got along.

But there's a deeper message in there too. Nale and the LG were important as a plot element early on, exposing the various OotS characters using funhouse mirrors. Nale highlights how good a leader Roy is by contrasting his own style. Roy had the chance to abandon Elan to the bandits, but in the end went back. Nale abandoned Hilgya, the gnome druid, the wizard school dropout, a whole family of kobold rangers, etc. By the time the LG returns to the Western Continent they are not really a LG any more. Tarquin has to fill the role of characterization by contrast, and Nale's 'leadership' is just a joke while Tarquin attempts to insert himself into the main villain role.

By this time Nale has no further narrative purpose, and of this Tarquin is as fully aware as Elan. Nale can offer more of the same, but nothing new. Had he lived his part of the story would be over anyway. Elan outgrew him. His death was nothing more than a demonstration that Tarquin too was not redeemable. The abandonment of Tarquin was Elan's final realization that, as he had seen in his pyramid dream, there could be no happy ending that included either of them. The caterpillar of the Sunken Valley finally sheds his pupal shell in the Western Desert to become the imago he was always destined to be.

Nale had to die so that Elan, (and his many fans,) would know that Elan was on his own, and Tarquin had to live to show that Elan had grown enough to realize he could not be the father he always wanted. Elan has literally put his dysfunctional family behind him.

As to alignment: the story elements had to occur one way or another, but HOW the individuals went about achieving the author's desired conclusion is important. Tarquin had no further use for Nale, and so he killed him before Nale had the chance to do him. And be very clear here: Tarquin isn't in the least interested in Malack's death, other than as it relates to his loss of a valuable ally. That's justification after the fact. What matters is that Tarquin, while he can use another servant, has absolutely no interest in allowing an eventual rival to live. (It was just a matter of time before Nale saw a chance to defenestrate Tarquin, and Tarquin had just had an example of the end result of not killing Nale at the first opportunity.)

Contrast this with Elan's refusal to engage in patricide. Elan was done with Tarquin and he knew it. If the Vector Legion or any of its members ever show up again it will be for purposes of exposition, as in the Order Of The Scribble episodes, or as cannon fodder for the OotS against their latest threat. They can die heroically and get some words of praise from Elan, but they can never again make Elan believe in them. They are soo 200 pages ago, and their story is done. And it was, for me at least, a very good ending to their story.

Lord

2017-12-06, 06:03 PM

Yes, congratulations, if you willfully ignore everything about the situation except "Nale was evil" and "Tarquin didn't kill him until he did" you can spin it so that Tarquin showed "mercy" somehow. You won't have anything close to the comic, but you'll have...what you apparently want to see.

(I especially liked the parts where it was important that Nale was a "danger to everyone around him" and "a disgusting excuse for a human being" but the vampire who bragged that he would turn the entire continent into an abattoir was just "an important head of state.")

I'm not spinning Tarquin. I'm pointing out that the right decision for a Lawful Good character would be:

Give Nale a last second chance and execute him on the spot when he refuses, since no jail can hold him.

Just as the right decision for a Lawful Neutral character would be to:

Execute Nale on the spot.

Tarquin merely represents the Lawful Evil perspective:
Give Nale a chance to live by serving him, or execute him on the spot.

No sane government official would take any action other than what Tarquin did. And yes, Malack was a terrible person, but that is not revelant to the present situation. He was still an official head of state. Which means any government has an obligation to see his murderer punished lest it happen again.

And keep in mind, giving Nale a second chance whatever the motive, is enormously risky. Tarquin has absolutely ZERO use for Nale at this point. He's a mediocre fighter, highly unreliable, and almost certainly is going to betray him at some point. Letting him live will undermine Tarquin's authority with the rest of the Vector Legion.
Tarquin is prepared to sacrifice and risk a great deal just to let his ungrateful, useless wretch of a son keep breathing, when the son he actually has a use for is Elan.
That is mercy. Tarquin is not a good person, but he was definitely showing it in regards to Nale who was, in his view, nothing more than a loose end cluttering up the storyline and a liability. If he wasn't being merciful, he would have executed him without giving him a second chance of any kind.
So yeah, I view it as a minor good act. It isn't going to pave his way to heaven or anything, but for what it was worth Tarquin was showing a remarkable amount of restraint.

littlebum2002

2017-12-06, 06:22 PM

I'm not spinning Tarquin. I'm pointing out that the right decision for a Lawful Good character would be:

Give Nale a last second chance and execute him on the spot when he refuses, since no jail can hold him.

Just as the right decision for a Lawful Neutral character would be to:

Execute Nale on the spot.

Tarquin merely represents the Lawful Evil perspective:
Give Nale a chance to live by serving him, or execute him on the spot.

No sane government official would take any action other than what Tarquin did. And yes, Malack was a terrible person, but that is not revelant to the present situation. He was still an official head of state. Which means any government has an obligation to see his murderer punished lest it happen again.

And keep in mind, giving Nale a second chance whatever the motive, is enormously risky. Tarquin has absolutely ZERO use for Nale at this point. He's a mediocre fighter, highly unreliable, and almost certainly is going to betray him at some point. Letting him live will undermine Tarquin's authority with the rest of the Vector Legion.
Tarquin is prepared to sacrifice and risk a great deal just to let his ungrateful, useless wretch of a son keep breathing, when the son he actually has a use for is Elan.
That is mercy. Tarquin is not a good person, but he was definitely showing it in regards to Nale who was, in his view, nothing more than a loose end cluttering up the storyline and a liability. If he wasn't being merciful, he would have executed him without giving him a second chance of any kind.
So yeah, I view it as a minor good act. It isn't going to pave his way to heaven or anything, but for what it was worth Tarquin was showing a remarkable amount of restraint.

TBH I can't think of any alignment which wouldn't be OK with executing someone if there is a very high probability of them escaping from any jail you would put them in and do evil things directly opposed to your own interests if they did so.

Peelee

2017-12-06, 06:45 PM

I'm not spinning Tarquin. I'm pointing out that the right decision for a Lawful Good character would be:

Give Nale a last second chance and execute him on the spot when he refuses
I don't think Lawful Good means what you think it means.

abattoir
Learned me a new word today. Thanks!

eilandesq

2017-12-06, 07:04 PM

Tarquin's murder of Nale is literally the first example given by TVTropes for "Too Dumb To Live" on the OotS page, because Nale was basically begging to die at that moment. Suffice it to say that he had it coming, Tarquin was cleaning up his own mess, and the only reason *not* to cheer Nale's death is because Tarquin murdered Nale in front of his brother, who is kind and decent to a degree that would make Steve Rogers blush, and who was genuinely horrified that the brother who had repeatedly tried to murder him and everyone he cared about was dead.

Kish

2017-12-06, 07:33 PM

I'm not spinning Tarquin.
Oh? Then you acknowledge that Tarquin killed Nale because Tarquin's ego demanded it and for no other reason, that nothing he said or did ever was about compassion or mercy, and that every word you've previously written on the subject is irrelevant to what actually happened in the comic?

No, of course you don't, which means yes you are spinning Tarquin. You even already claimed mercy had something to do with his not killing Nale until he did. All this stuff about what entirely hypothetical characters would do and why has no purpose but to occlude what the actual character in the comic did do and why.

Aquillion

2017-12-06, 07:35 PM

Honestly, Tarquin asks a good question. What WAS Nale thinking would happen when he picked that fight?What was Tarquin thinking when he forced Nale and Malack to work together on the same team, knowing that both of them hated each other and were trying to kill each other? What did he think was going to happen?

I mean, as Nale points out, Tarquin all but promised Malack that he could kill Nale afterwards, in front of Nale. Tarquin gives some breezy explanation that he would have avoided it, but... well, how? And how did he expect Nale to know this? He'd given every indication that he no longer cared about Nale's life and that the plan was to kill him afterwards.

Nale's reaction was entirely predictable and Tarquin failed to see it because he both has trouble considering the motivations of anyone other than himself, and because he is basically not as smart as he thinks he is - he knows a lot of tropes, but rarely thinks or plans outside them.

Ganbatte

2017-12-06, 07:42 PM

What was Tarquin thinking when he forced Nale and Malack to work together on the same team, knowing that both of them hated each other and were trying to kill each other? What did he think was going to happen?

I mean, as Nale points out, Tarquin all but promised Malack that he could kill Nale afterwards, in front of Nale. Tarquin gives some breezy explanation that he would have avoided it, but... well, how? And how did he expect Nale to know this? He'd given every indication that he no longer cared about Nale's life and that the plan was to kill him afterwards.

Nale's reaction was entirely predictable and Tarquin failed to see it because he both has trouble considering the motivations of anyone other than himself, and because he is basically not as smart as he thinks he is - he knows a lot of tropes, but rarely thinks or plans outside them.

Well yeah, Tarquin sees everyone around him as pawns on the grand-board of his life.
He'd never really consider those pawns to act and move of their own will.

Fyraltari

2017-12-06, 07:43 PM

What was Tarquin thinking when he forced Nale and Malack to work together on the same team, knowing that both of them hated each other and were trying to kill each other? What did he think was going to happen?

I mean, as Nale points out, Tarquin all but promised Malack that he could kill Nale afterwards, in front of Nale. Tarquin gives some breezy explanation that he would have avoided it, but... well, how? And how did he expect Nale to know this? He'd given every indication that he no longer cared about Nale's life and that the plan was to kill him afterwards.

Nale's reaction was entirely predictable and Tarquin failed to see it because he both has trouble considering the motivations of anyone other than himself, and because he is basically not as smart as he thinks he is - he knows a lot of tropes, but rarely thinks or plans outside them.

Frankly the more you think about it the more alike they look. Even Tarquin's claim of Nale letting his need to be openly the victor cripple hois plans when stealth is required comes across as hypocritical when you consider that he has a big statue in the middle of town and throws a parade to honour his son when he is supposed to appear like an obscure military advisor to the Great and Glorious Empress of Blood.

wumpus

2017-12-06, 07:50 PM

Mercy is forgiveness: giving someone a second chance, without adding strings, even when they don't deserve it. It is not intensifying the conflict to "Now, you'll obey me or you'll die".

Mercy basically *requires* to be given when somebody "doesn't deserve it", although obviously only in the "merciful's" eyes. Justice is what happens when mercy isn't given. At least one major religion (or at least its holy writings) contains harsh warnings about giving, receiving, and asking for "justice" (note that this doesn't necessarily require interfering with legal systems although an example of such is given).

Keltest

2017-12-06, 08:13 PM

What was Tarquin thinking when he forced Nale and Malack to work together on the same team, knowing that both of them hated each other and were trying to kill each other? What did he think was going to happen?

I mean, as Nale points out, Tarquin all but promised Malack that he could kill Nale afterwards, in front of Nale. Tarquin gives some breezy explanation that he would have avoided it, but... well, how? And how did he expect Nale to know this? He'd given every indication that he no longer cared about Nale's life and that the plan was to kill him afterwards.

Nale's reaction was entirely predictable and Tarquin failed to see it because he both has trouble considering the motivations of anyone other than himself, and because he is basically not as smart as he thinks he is - he knows a lot of tropes, but rarely thinks or plans outside them.

probably that Nale was too incompetent to effectively separate Malack from Tarquin while surrounding him by the Linear Guild in such a circumstance where Malack could not escape, and that Malack was mature and disciplined enough to not attack Nale first, at which point he could keep them separate.

Which is an entirely reasonable line of thought, given Nale's track record and Malack's powers.

Jasdoif

2017-12-06, 08:51 PM

Mercy basically *requires* to be given when somebody "doesn't deserve it", although obviously only in the "merciful's" eyes.If it's known, sure. I prefer to count "well I can't determine if you deserve a second chance or not, but have one anyway" in the "mercy" category.

Justice is what happens when mercy isn't given. At least one major religion (or at least its holy writings) contains harsh warnings about giving, receiving, and asking for "justice" (note that this doesn't necessarily require interfering with legal systems although an example of such is given).At least one fictional religion has "comfort is given, justice is taken" (http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:The_Book_of_Dawn_and_Dusk). And I'm a little concerned that I've gone from VeggieTales to Morrowind in this fashion.

Lord

2017-12-06, 09:14 PM

Oh? Then you acknowledge that Tarquin killed Nale because Tarquin's ego demanded it and for no other reason, that nothing he said or did ever was about compassion or mercy, and that every word you've previously written on the subject is irrelevant to what actually happened in the comic?

No, of course you don't, which means yes you are spinning Tarquin. You even already claimed mercy had something to do with his not killing Nale until he did. All this stuff about what entirely hypothetical characters would do and why has no purpose but to occlude what the actual character in the comic did do and why.

Of course not. I merely interpreted Tarquin's actions differently from you. I'm terribly sorry, but the human race is not a hive mind which adheres to your particular interpretation of events.

It's called an Alternate Character Interpretation. Look it up.

goodpeople25

2017-12-06, 09:22 PM

probably that Nale was too incompetent to effectively separate Malack from Tarquin while surrounding him by the Linear Guild in such a circumstance where Malack could not escape, and that Malack was mature and disciplined enough to not attack Nale first, at which point he could keep them separate.

Which is an entirely reasonable line of thought, given Nale's track record and Malack's powers.
Was he thinking that Nale couldn't seperate him from Malack when he seperated himself from Malack? That standout aside I think this is probably pretty close though what about the possibility of Malack retaliating after/instead of escaping?

Keltest

2017-12-06, 09:25 PM

Was he thinking that Nale couldn't seperate him from Malack when he seperated himself from Malack? That standout aside I think this is probably pretty close though what about the possibility of Malack retaliating after/instead of escaping?

Its not just a question of separating Tarquin from the party, he also needs to permanently beat Malack in a fight.

Malack can also go into mistform, and if Nale somehow does get lucky enough to beat him in a fight, he just returns to his coffin. The sun is theoretically not an issue because of the numerous ways of casting his protection spell, and the fact that theyre in a dungeon. Its not just a question of leaving them alone, Nale displayed a level of competence and effective tactical planning that he had heretofore never been shown to possess.

goodpeople25

2017-12-06, 09:32 PM

Its not just a question of separating Tarquin from the party, he also needs to permanently beat Malack in a fight.

Malack can also go into mistform, and if Nale somehow does get lucky enough to beat him in a fight, he just returns to his coffin. The sun is theoretically not an issue because of the numerous ways of casting his protection spell, and the fact that theyre in a dungeon. Its not just a question of leaving them alone, Nale displayed a level of competence and effective tactical planning that he had heretofore never been shown to possess.
I get that, it was just something that stood out to me since it didn't apply all the way through. The 2nd part was more of a question but I could see that working.

Kish

2017-12-06, 09:35 PM

Of course not. I merely interpreted Tarquin's actions differently from you. I'm terribly sorry, but the human race is not a hive mind which adheres to your particular interpretation of events.

It's called an Alternate Character Interpretation. Look it up.
And when people point out how insupportable your interpretation is, you just ignore what they say and repeat it, so I'll take your grudging acknowledgement that there was anything more to my post than chanting "TARQUIN BAD NALE GOOD" as more of a win than anyone else is having trying to interact with you.

Keltest

2017-12-06, 09:38 PM

I get that, it was just something that stood out to me since it didn't apply all the way through. The 2nd part was more of a question but I could see that working.

Well, the entire teamup has the implicit threat of coercion by force to get Nale involved at all. He certainly isnt letting Malack tag along out of familial love and nostalgia. Should Nale break the truce, he is once again a hostile target that Malack at least will be directing the resources of the empire to locate.

And hey, look what happened. Nale broke the truce and got killed.

goodpeople25

2017-12-06, 09:49 PM

Well, the entire teamup has the implicit threat of coercion by force to get Nale involved at all. He certainly isnt letting Malack tag along out of familial love and nostalgia. Should Nale break the truce, he is once again a hostile target that Malack at least will be directing the resources of the empire to locate.

And hey, look what happened. Nale broke the truce and got killed.
So did Tarquin want Nale killed then? I'm not necessarily trying to refute or prove anything I just think that's something related to the intial "what was Tarquin thinking putting them together" to think about.

Fyraltari

2017-12-06, 09:50 PM

Its not just a question of separating Tarquin from the party, he also needs to permanently beat Malack in a fight.

Malack can also go into mistform, and if Nale somehow does get lucky enough to beat him in a fight, he just returns to his coffin. The sun is theoretically not an issue because of the numerous ways of casting his protection spell, and the fact that theyre in a dungeon. Its not just a question of leaving them alone, Nale displayed a level of competence and effective tactical planning that he had heretofore never been shown to possess.

Malack prepared protection from sunlight twice every day. I wonder how many dispel magic Z had. Also the two times we've seen Nale enact a plan of his it failed because 1) Haley rolled a natural 20 and 2) Elan just happened to meet someone with an airship willing to help. What he lacks is contigencies not competence or tactical planning.

Jasdoif

2017-12-06, 09:57 PM

So did Tarquin want Nale killed then? I'm not necessarily trying to refute or prove anything I just think that's something related to the intial "what was Tarquin thinking putting them together" to think about.I would guess Tarquin simply assumed that Nale, as an extension of himself, was a critical part of the narrative; and therefore that Nale would never be in a position to be killed by Malack without Tarquin himself being there to assert control over the situation.

Malack prepared protection from sunlight twice every day. I wonder how many dispel magic Z had. Also the two times we've seen Nale enact a plan of his it failed because 1) Haley rolled a natural 20 and 2) Elan just happened to meet someone with an airship willing to help. What he lacks is contigencies not competence or tactical planning.My overall impression of Nale and effectiveness: Nale is much better with simple/spontaneous tactics than he is with making complicated plans workable, but Nale enjoys making complicated plans so he keeps doing them when he can.

Kish

2017-12-06, 10:08 PM

The two times we've seen Nale start a plan, it got as far as it did because he was lucky enough to have his enemies be more obtuse than he could ever have legitimately predicted (only Haley, who was too consistently paranoid to be listened to, noticed all the mustache-twirling the first Linear Guild was doing; Thog literally committed murder right in front of Roy; then the second time, no one questioned why Elan was repeating "I'm Elan!" over and over and Haley made a deliberate choice to not see that he was behaving unlike Elan).

So did Tarquin want Nale killed then? I'm not necessarily trying to refute or prove anything I just think that's something related to the intial "what was Tarquin thinking putting them together" to think about.
Fundamentally, he doesn't understand people at all. He thinks of everyone in terms of stories and is lucky enough to be in a world where that is sometimes useful rather than landing him in a padded cell, but he fundamentally failed to understand the nature of the narrative he was in. He didn't realize that he and Malack were third-stringer villains and Nale was a second-stringer villain in a complicated story in which the protagonists are an ensemble cast; he thought he was the single ultimate villain and, thus, that his minions, including both Malack and Nale, however much they might growl at each other before playing their role in Tarquin's clash with Elan, would only actually die/be destroyed if they were killed by the single ultimate hero (Elan), or possibly killed by Tarquin himself with a quip about how they'd failed him for the last time.

NihhusHuotAliro

2017-12-06, 11:29 PM

Nale killed Malack, freeing the soul of the barbarian shaman, and avenging the tribe that no longer exists.

He also killed Malack's children, freeing those souls.

I gotta say, that's probably more good for the world than Haley's, Elan, or Roy ever accomplished.

And those innocent people in Cliffport were boring nobodies anyways.

DemonRoach

2017-12-07, 01:35 AM

Does not mean he can't act lawful from time to time, especially if he is Neutral.

Context: Quibbling over Shojo

Does mean his actions are not proof of what a Lawful individual in OOTS would do

Ruck

2017-12-07, 02:24 AM

Well....
Given that Nale helped Tarquin with the "family business" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html) in the first place, Hypothetical-Nale would probably be in for a hard time; I don't think Tarquin would allow Nale into his narrative without a specific "pawn" role in mind for him to play.

Whether that hard time would cost Nale a hand instead of a heart, I don't know; "God knows what else" covers way too much ground.

Even that, though, comes after Tarquin has been repeatedly frustrated by Elan and the Order, since he doesn't understand the real narrative. It wasn't Tarquin's initial reaction to Elan's "We're not doing things your way," it was after he was repeatedly frustrated in his attempts to control the narrative and completely snapped-- and also, as even Rich has pointed out, without his closest ally in the Vector Legion to rein in his worst and most ridiculous impulses. So would all that have happened and Tarquin acted that way under different circumstances? Hard to say; eventually, we'll extrapolate enough that we'll be talking about an entirely different story with significant changes to the characters.

Anyway, what makes the whole scene interesting for me is that there were quite a few plausible justifications for it-- normal, understandable, even good (I'd say killing Nale serves the greater good, although I have little reason to believe that's why Tarquin did it)-- and that makes it more interesting to me than just reducing it to the one motivation.

Jasdoif

2017-12-07, 02:47 AM

Even that, though, comes after Tarquin has been repeatedly frustrated by Elan and the Order, since he doesn't understand the real narrative. It wasn't Tarquin's initial reaction to Elan's "We're not doing things your way," it was after he was repeatedly frustrated in his attempts to control the narrative and completely snapped-- and also, as even Rich has pointed out, without his closest ally in the Vector Legion to rein in his worst and most ridiculous impulses. So would all that have happened and Tarquin acted that way under different circumstances? Hard to say; eventually, we'll extrapolate enough that we'll be talking about an entirely different story with significant changes to the characters.Frankly, if we're imagining the scenario with drastic changes to Nale and the scenario itself, we're already past the point where I'd expect extrapolation to be reliable.

With the same basic scenario but only Nale different as you described earlier, we can try extrapolating (or maybe interpolating) there instead....It was Tarquin's repeated failures to make small steps (in Tarquin's view) to push Elan to go along with his narrative, that resulted in Tarquin trying to take bigger steps. Unless Nale can play the part Tarquin sets out for him without being his pawn (since being his pawn violates the setup you laid out), the same escalation could easily happen with Nale. Well, unless Tarquin decides that the rivalry between Elan and Nale is what's holding Elan back, and tries to remove Nale the same way he tried with Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0916.html).

And while it's true Malack wasn't there in-comic to rein in Tarquin's impulses when it came to Elan, recall that Malack actively wants Nale dead. He's not likely to restrain Tarquin from harming Nale.

Yendor

2017-12-07, 02:59 AM

Malack died as a direct result of Tarquin's deception. Malack made it perfectly clear he intended to kill Nale as soon as possible, and Nale had every reason to believe he would be allowed to do so. It's at least as much a case of self-defense as Haley snuffing Crystal.

Tarquin killed Nale for refusing to be his pawn, and not because of any concern for Malack. A minute earlier, he was talking about "smoothing things over" with Laurin (who reacted in a way you'd expect from someone who actually considered Malack a friend). If anything, he was covering up the embarrassing failure of his Cunning Plan going up in smoke.

Nale was incredibly foolish in rubbing his victory in Tarquin's face, but that in no way mitigates his cold-blooded murder at the hands of Tarquin.

Fyraltari

2017-12-07, 05:04 AM

Context: Quibbling over Shojo

Does mean his actions are not proof of what a Lawful individual in OOTS would do

Nobody said they were. I don't understand where youare going with this.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-07, 09:27 AM

It's at least as much a case of self-defense as Haley snuffing Crystal. Yeah, nemesis situations usually get resolved in a narrative by at least one of them dying.

The Aboleth

2017-12-07, 09:29 AM

Tarquin killed Nale for refusing to be his pawn, and not because of any concern for Malack. A minute earlier, he was talking about "smoothing things over" with Laurin (who reacted in a way you'd expect from someone who actually considered Malack a friend). If anything, he was covering up the embarrassing failure of his Cunning Plan going up in smoke.

It's also interesting that Tarquin keeps telling Malack to "put business first," yet when push comes to shove he can't do the same when it comes to Elan. Instead, he tries to justify his increasingly unhinged actions by saying it is business, though it's clear to the other Vector Legion members that it is not. The only reason they indulge Tarquin is because he cashes in a favor (and gives one up, as well).

For all Tarquin's talk about putting business first, it's clear that only applies to everyone not named Tarquin.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-07, 09:54 AM

For all Tarquin's talk about putting business first, it's clear that only applies to everyone not named Tarquin. Laurin's disintegrate spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html)looked to me like an emotional reaction, not just business, given her being aghast at Nale's admission that he'd killed Malack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html).

Fyraltari

2017-12-07, 10:14 AM

Laurin's disintegrate spell (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html)looked to me like an emotional reaction, not just business, given her being aghast at Nale's admission that he'd killed Malack (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html).

That was not bad business.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-07, 10:39 AM

That was not bad business. Fair enough, given that a living (raised) Nale was a threat to Tarquin and his allies.

Lord

2017-12-07, 11:02 AM

And when people point out how insupportable your interpretation is, you just ignore what they say and repeat it, so I'll take your grudging acknowledgement that there was anything more to my post than chanting "TARQUIN BAD NALE GOOD" as more of a win than anyone else is having trying to interact with you.

I have never maintained that Tarquin is a good person or that Tarquin was a good father. I am fully aware of his atrocities. The only thing I have said is that that Tarquin executing Nale was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in that specific situation, and indeed the only reasonable thing to do. Giving Nale any kind of out was actually being unreasonably forthcoming with no prospect of gain. Tarquin gave him a chance to live anyway, which is mercy, whatever his motivations.

And you can't win. This is supposed to be a discussion of a fictional webcomic. No one is judging anyone else personally. Please calm down and stop taking everything so seriously.

Kish

2017-12-07, 11:09 AM

Remarkable! You're not interested in addressing what I said, but you'll diagnose my emotional state--about as well as you do Tarquin's. (Hint: try "amusement.")

If you ever feel like actually addressing my posts in this thread, they'll still be here. And bringing in goofy hypotheticals and asserting over and over that not killing someone is automatically mercy "whatever his motivations" will still not be an argument.

Lord

2017-12-07, 11:13 AM

Remarkable! You're not interested in addressing what I said, but you'll diagnose my emotional state--about as well as you do Tarquin's.

If you ever feel like actually addressing my posts in this thread, there'll still be here. And bringing in goofy hypotheticals and asserting over and over that not killing someone is automatically mercy will still not be an argument.

I have never made any claim about Tarquin's emotional state. I have never said that Tarquin loved his son.

My argument is that killing Nale was the only reasonable course of action for any person in Tarquin's position, regardless of his alignment of personal nature. Nale is a longstanding enemy of the Empire of Blood who has murdered a head of state, boasted about it, and refused any attempt at reconciliation. Killing him is the only option. The only question is whether to give him a trial.

To refute my claims you have to actually point out a more reasonable course of action, or a way in which Tarquin's response to Nale was unreasonable. Instead you have only said that Tarquin is utterly evil. Which I have never disputed.

The moment you make a point which is actually relevant to my argument, I promise you I will respond to it.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-07, 11:40 AM

Nale is a longstanding enemy of the Empire of Blood who has murdered a head of state, boasted about it, and refused any attempt at reconciliation. Killing him is the only option. The only question is whether to give him a trial. I have trouble with your characterizing Malack as a head of state. His role was as a minister of the state (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html). (I guess he was a power behind the throne alongside Tarquin). I do agree that, in Tarquin's position, killing Nale made sense for a lot of practical reasons to do with Tarquin's goals, and for that matter, with the goals of his partners in "ruling from behind the throne three competing kingdoms/empires" as described by Tarquin.

Fyraltari

2017-12-07, 11:52 AM

I have trouble with your characterizing Malack as a head of state. His role was as a minister of the state (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html). (I guess he was a power behind the throne alongside Tarquin). I do agree that, in Tarquin's position, killing Nale made sense for a lot of practical reasons to do with Tarquin's goals, and for that matter, with the goals of his partners in "ruling from behind the throne three competing kingdoms/empires" as described by Tarquin.

Wait, is it Minister as in the statesman job or minister as in the clergyman job? What is even his official role?

Lord

2017-12-07, 11:56 AM

I have trouble with your characterizing Malack as a head of state. His role was as a minister of the state (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html). (I guess he was a power behind the throne alongside Tarquin). I do agree that, in Tarquin's position, killing Nale made sense for a lot of practical reasons to do with Tarquin's goals, and for that matter, with the goals of his partners in "ruling from behind the throne three competing kingdoms/empires" as described by Tarquin.

Fair enough, let us instead refer to him as an important public official and close personal friend.

littlebum2002

2017-12-07, 12:50 PM

Fyraltari

2017-12-07, 12:57 PM

Guys, Tarquin was clearly a Klingon mercenary from Discworld who killed Nale because Nale was Darth Vader in disguise and was trying to stop Elan (really Frodo) from throwing his horcrux into the Pit of Dispair.

So that's why Durkon has been recast (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1013.html)! He isn't just a healbot, he's the Doctor!

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-07, 01:00 PM

So that's why Durkon has been recast (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1013.html)! He isn't just a healbot, he's the Doctor!

No, that can't be. The Doctor would never be out and about without his TARDIS.

GW

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-07, 01:07 PM

Wait, is it Minister as in the statesman job or minister as in the clergyman job?
Probably both, since Rich does use wordplay quite a bit. Double meanings are not strangers to OoTS. :smallbiggrin: I am pretty sure that in the scene I linked to it was "flunkies of state" addressing a "minister of state" in terms of that scene's context. Note that Chancellor is used for the Kobold.

goodpeople25

2017-12-07, 01:21 PM

No, that can't be. The Doctor would never be out and about without his TARDIS.

GW
Maybe that's why he's here, to get DnD magic to compliment his technology, so the TARDIS is there just with magic for moving and making up for it's faulty chameleon circuit.
Hardly a Doctor Who expert, sorry if I got anything wrong.

Peelee

2017-12-07, 01:23 PM

No, that can't be. The Doctor would never be out and about without his TARDIS.

GW

Before I stopped watching, he was separated from his TARDIS on at least two notable occasions.

Grey_Wolf_c

2017-12-07, 01:25 PM

Before I stopped watching, he was separated from his TARDIS on at least two notable occasions.

Far more often than that. But it is still there. It's like the Luggage, you can't really be separated from her for long.

GW

Peelee

2017-12-07, 01:26 PM

Far more often than that. But it is still there. It's like the Luggage, you can't really be separated from her for long.

GW

Well, in Blink, he could have been separated for ~40 years. "Long" is a funny term for a long-lived being.

Fyraltari

2017-12-07, 01:35 PM

Far more often than that. But it is still there. It's like the Luggage, you can't really be separated from her for long.

GW

What about Time of the Doctor?

littlebum2002

2017-12-07, 02:38 PM

Well, in Blink, he could have been separated for ~40 years. "Long" is a funny term for a long-lived being.

What about Time of the Doctor?

Neither of these compare to Heaven Sent, where he is separated from the Tardis for a billion years I believe.

Fyraltari

2017-12-07, 02:56 PM

Neither of these compare to Heaven Sent, where he is separated from the Tardis for a billion years I believe.

4,5 billions but he only remembers like two-three days.

Peelee

2017-12-07, 03:14 PM

Neither of these compare to Heaven Sent, where he is separated from the Tardis for a billion years I believe.

I stopped caring about the show sometime during Smith's time, so I'm not surprised.

littlebum2002

2017-12-07, 03:22 PM

I stopped caring about the show sometime during Smith's time, so I'm not surprised.

I don't watch Dr. Who or Black Mirror regularly anymore, I just watch whenever there's an "acclaimed" episode. I highly recommend even ex-viewers like myself watch Heaven Sent, it's definitely a "top 10" modern Dr. Who episode.

(And I don't care if you've never seen Dr. Who in your life, everyone should watch Vincent and the Doctor)

Priceguy

2017-12-07, 03:30 PM

Fundamentally, he doesn't understand people at all. He thinks of everyone in terms of stories and is lucky enough to be in a world where that is sometimes useful rather than landing him in a padded cell, but he fundamentally failed to understand the nature of the narrative he was in. He didn't realize that he and Malack were third-stringer villains and Nale was a second-stringer villain in a complicated story in which the protagonists are an ensemble cast; he thought he was the single ultimate villain and, thus, that his minions, including both Malack and Nale, however much they might growl at each other before playing their role in Tarquin's clash with Elan, would only actually die/be destroyed if they were killed by the single ultimate hero (Elan), or possibly killed by Tarquin himself with a quip about how they'd failed him for the last time.

Exactly. Tarquin is fundamentally self-centered, caring about things and people only inasmuch as they relate to him. It's an axiom to him, visible in the way his dialogue doesn't allow for the possibility of Nale not wanting anything to do with Tarquin. He doesn't grasp the concept that what Nale wants is an autonomous existence separate from his father. When this idea finally gets through to him, he kills Nale because in that case, Nale has no further role to play in the Story of Tarquin. Hence, superfluous.

Lord

2017-12-07, 04:39 PM

Guys, Tarquin was clearly a Klingon mercenary from Discworld who killed Nale because Nale was Darth Vader in disguise and was trying to stop Elan (really Frodo) from throwing his horcrux into the Pit of Dispair.

I know there isn't any evidence for this, and in fact there is a lot of evidence against it, but it doesn't matter because this is my Alternate Character Interpretation and is therefore equally as valid as any other interpretation.

You are absolutely right. It is equally valid as any interpretation. I suggest you write a fanfic about it where Captain Kirk comes down and gets into a fistfight with said Klingon Mercenary. Maybe Inigo Montoya could have a showdown with Roy, who is actually Captain America after a DC racelift.

This is a work of fiction. And since we never see much in the way of thought bubbles from Tarquin, there is a great deal of room for interpreting why he is doing what he is doing. Maybe Malack didn't really matter for him and he only killed Nale because he refused to be in his control. Or maybe Tarquin was genuinely trying to save Nale, and when he was totally rejected only then let his anger over the death of Malack take over.

Peelee

2017-12-07, 04:49 PM

ou are absolutely right. It is equally valid as any interpretation.
[snip]
This is a work of fiction. By definition it is filtered through the lens of whoever is watching it.
So when you asked if you were the only one who read it in a certain way, you were looking for an echo chamber? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Lord

2017-12-07, 05:48 PM

I wanted to see if anyone else shared my opinion regarding Tarquin's killing of Nale. From the looks of things there are some people, mostly those who had gotten sick of Nale's crazy ambush scenarios.

Kish

2017-12-07, 07:05 PM

If you only wanted to learn how many other people had a positive visceral reaction to Nale's death, it would probably have been less confusing had you asked for that alone to begin with, leaving out the parts where you seemed to be suggesting, contrary to what you're saying now, that reasoning and evidence could have something to do with one's evaluation of Tarquin killing Nale.

Emanick

2017-12-07, 07:47 PM

I don't watch Dr. Who or Black Mirror regularly anymore, I just watch whenever there's an "acclaimed" episode. I highly recommend even ex-viewers like myself watch Heaven Sent, it's definitely a "top 10" modern Dr. Who episode.

(And I don't care if you've never seen Dr. Who in your life, everyone should watch Vincent and the Doctor)

Heaven Sent is not only the best episode of Doctor Who I've seen, it's the best episode of anything I've ever seen. It's also better than any movie I have ever seen. It would be worth watching entire seasons of terrible television in order to get to, because it's just that good.

Honestly, it's worth watching the entirety of Season 9 (which is also arguably the best season of Doctor Who since the revival) just to get the context and make it that much more powerful, because an opportunity to watch something that good at its full power doesn't come along every year. This is not even me being a fanboy here, unless you can be a fanboy of specific episodes. You would need a logarithmic graph to display how good it is even compared to most good episodes of the series. Heck, I've read roughly 1,100 books, and I'd number the books that compare favorably to it on their artistic merits in the single digits.

(Sorry for furthering the complete tangent, but I couldn't resist the temptation to plug the best sequence of moving pictures ever.)

dps

2017-12-07, 08:34 PM

Wait, is it Minister as in the statesman job or minister as in the clergyman job? What is even his official role?

By his own statement, he was both high priest and personal spiritual advisor to the Empress. The personal spiritual advisor part would seem to be some sort of governmental or quasi-governmental position; whether or not being the High Priest of Nergal was also a governmental position or purely a clerical title would probably depend on whether or not the church of Nergal was an established church in the Empire of Blood.

skaddix

2017-12-08, 10:24 AM

Eh in a DnD style Campaign World of the standard variety High Priest probably is a Government Title. Separation of Church and State aint really a thing.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-08, 10:37 AM

Eh in a DnD style Campaign World of the standard variety High Priest probably is a Government Title. Separation of Church and State aint really a thing. Depends on the edition. It was a level name in the earliest edition, but with more recent editions your point is pretty good. I'll suggest that it's less a "government" title than an organization-based title (for the particular temple/religion in question). High Priest of Hel indicates where in the Hel worshipping hierarchy (or frontarchy) a particular priest fits.

skaddix

2017-12-08, 12:51 PM

Well Hel is unique do to the Loki-Thor deal.

Cifer

2017-12-09, 08:17 PM

Regarding Nale, yeah, I was somewhat glad that he croaked, even though I quite liked his romance with Sabine.

When it comes to Tarquin, I would have liked him to be the reasonable (if most definitely evil) authority figure. He wasn't and that's okay too. The only thing that was hard to swallow for me was the giant's insistence that his treating the world as a story was a flaw and a quirk to be tolerated at best rather than an absolute asset, that his opinion that Rob Redblade and Murkon Lightninghammer would join Elan's quest was in error (rather than just monstrous). You don't get to make that argument when you've spent thirteen years shaping a universe that works exactly like that.

Jasdoif

2017-12-10, 12:34 AM

The only thing that was hard to swallow for me was the giant's insistence that his treating the world as a story was a flaw and a quirk to be tolerated at best rather than an absolute asset, that his opinion that Rob Redblade and Murkon Lightninghammer would join Elan's quest was in error (rather than just monstrous).The commentary in Blood Runs in the Family goes into this in more depth....But the short version is that Tarquin's problem wasn't in treating the world as a story. Tarquin's problem was in treating the world as the story Tarquin wanted it to be, instead of the story it was. He believed himself to be the primary villain of the story, and from there invoked literary tropes that would work for the primary villain (the specific example given was throwing all his minions at the heroes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0916.html), like Xykon and Redcloak did back in Azure City (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0452.html))...but since he's not the primary villain, they didn't work like he expected (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0921.html).

Ruck

2017-12-10, 07:51 AM

My argument is that killing Nale was the only reasonable course of action for any person in Tarquin's position, regardless of his alignment of personal nature.
I think this is probably true, although I'm coming around to the idea that Tarquin himself did it for the stupidest possible reason of all the reasons it made sense to do so.

Interestingly, while I took Tarquin's last words to Nale at face value at first, I now wonder if he's just saying what he thinks villains are supposed to say when they off someone significant to the story who wasn't expecting it.

Regarding Nale, yeah, I was somewhat glad that he croaked, even though I quite liked his romance with Sabine.

When it comes to Tarquin, I would have liked him to be the reasonable (if most definitely evil) authority figure. He wasn't and that's okay too. The only thing that was hard to swallow for me was the giant's insistence that his treating the world as a story was a flaw and a quirk to be tolerated at best rather than an absolute asset, that his opinion that Rob Redblade and Murkon Lightninghammer would join Elan's quest was in error (rather than just monstrous). You don't get to make that argument when you've spent thirteen years shaping a universe that works exactly like that.
I don't think the Giant said it like that. Paraphrasing, Tarquin was right insofar as his ability to build an empire through villainous conquest and avoid the pratfalls that take down other villains in stories, but he was mistaken about the broader story being told and refused to accept that, and that's when his obsession with story went from asset to liability.

Kish

2017-12-10, 10:43 AM

Interestingly, while I took Tarquin's last words to Nale at face value at first, I now wonder if he's just saying what he thinks villains are supposed to say when they off someone significant to the story who wasn't expecting it.
I don't think he's just saying what villains are supposed to say, so much as he's saying what he thinks people are supposed to say. He's only able to function as part of a team by hiding the full extent of his malignant narcissicm, which he has decades of practice in doing; he knows, whether or not he has any real idea why, that Laurin and Miron will react badly if he makes it clear his primary reaction to Malack's destruction is "drat, I lost a valuable asset." The way he speaks of Nale in the next strip is his genuine attitude showing, in the absence of anyone who will both care and be able to hold him accountable for it.

Ruck

2017-12-10, 09:29 PM

I don't think he's just saying what villains are supposed to say, so much as he's saying what he thinks people are supposed to say. He's only able to function as part of a team by hiding the full extent of his malignant narcissicm, which he has decades of practice in doing; he knows, whether or not he has any real idea why, that Laurin and Miron will react badly if he makes it clear his primary reaction to Malack's destruction is "drat, I lost a valuable asset." The way he speaks of Nale in the next strip is his genuine attitude showing, in the absence of anyone who will both care and be able to hold him accountable for it.

Yeah, generally, I'd think so, but I wonder to what extent Tarquin was trying to deliver what he thought would be a cool villain line in the moment, since villains usually say cool things when they kill their henchmen. (Also, he knows he's a villain, and that heroes don't kill their henchmen, let alone their sons.)

Lord

2017-12-11, 09:43 AM

See this is the point where our views break off. I think Tarquin had a genuine friendship with Malack and some measure of care for both his sons. Yes he was a narcissist, but I think he was genuinely furious when he learned Malack was dead and was merely in a state of tranquil fury, which he held back long enough to give Nale a second chance.

Just because he was a monster doesn't mean he couldn't have genuinely enjoyed spending time with Malack and been angry at his death. Likewise he likely could have had some fatherly affection for Nale which was dispensed of when Nale said he wanted nothing to do with him and replaced with white hot fury.

Keep in mind that Tarquin is a very good actor and we almost never see inside his head.

Aquillion

2017-12-11, 01:22 PM

I doubt it.

1. Why would Nale keep up the act with nobody there to see him but Nale? The entire premise of that scene, to me, is that Nale is one of the few people who's similar enough to him that he doesn't have to keep up the charade.

2. We do see his composure break later in the story. It's telling that the only thing that manages to make it happen is losing control of the situation. In contrast, Malack's death has almost no appreciable impact on him.

hroþila

2017-12-11, 01:50 PM

I could buy the theory of Tarquin's "tranquil fury" if I had seen him behave like a friend to Malack at some point.

Lord

2017-12-11, 04:02 PM

Fyraltari

2017-12-11, 04:14 PM

Keep in mind that Tarquin is a very good actor and we almost never see inside his head.

The two of them have an easy rapport throughout their various scenes together which doesn't seem like an act to me.
Why not? Keep in mind Malack is channelling negative energy at this very moment, if he did not back down he'd have died.

If you accept that as a genuine moment of friendship, then it easily paves the way for the ensuing tranquil fury.
Tarquin seems rather emotive and abrasive when he's angry.

Kish

2017-12-11, 04:21 PM

Whether Tarquin was actively afraid Malack would suddenly attack him or not, he was either lying there, or gratuitously lying to Nale later when he said he totally did plan for Malack to be forced to resume working with Nale permanently. It's...interesting...that the most oft-cited example of Tarquin showing "genuine friendship" was a time he was explicitly being phony and manipulative.

littlebum2002

2017-12-11, 07:00 PM

What about the scene where Tarquin apologizes to Malack for not taking the order seriously to test Elan in battle? I mean you could make an argument that was just calculated acting to convince Malack not to break ranks, but it could have just as easily been a genuine moment of friendship. The two of them have an easy rapport throughout their various scenes together which doesn't seem like an act to me.

If you accept that as a genuine moment of friendship, then it easily paves the way for the ensuing tranquil fury.

He also seemed to genuinely care for Nale at many points in the strip. We see how that turned out.

I don't think his "caring" for Nale and Malack was an act. I think Tarquin really saw Malack as a friend and really thought he loved Nale as his son. However, his actions show that he cares about himself more than his relationship with Nale, so it makes sense that he probably also cared about himself more than his relationship with Malack.

Aquillion

2017-12-12, 02:01 PM

What about the scene where Tarquin apologizes to Malack for not taking the order seriously to test Elan in battle? I mean you could make an argument that was just calculated acting to convince Malack not to break ranks, but it could have just as easily been a genuine moment of friendship. The two of them have an easy rapport throughout their various scenes together which doesn't seem like an act to me.

If you accept that as a genuine moment of friendship, then it easily paves the way for the ensuing tranquil fury.It's absolutely a calculated act - he's flatly lying to Malack in that scene, as he makes it clear to Nale later on. He never intended to let Malack get his revenge, and in fact was planning to try and get Nale back on his team, which means that he never took Malack's concerns remotely seriously.

Keltest

2017-12-12, 02:13 PM

It's absolutely a calculated act - he's flatly lying to Malack in that scene, as he makes it clear to Nale later on. He never intended to let Malack get his revenge, and in fact was planning to try and get Nale back on his team, which means that he never took Malack's concerns remotely seriously.

He could just have plausibly been lying to Nale there. Frankly, while I doubt that Tarquin would have been particularly happy if Malack had murdered Nale, i doubt he would be particularly broken up about it either. If Nale couldn't find a reason to keep Malack from attacking him even after everything Tarquin did to help, he wasn't really worth keeping alive anyway. As he said, he was giving Nale a chance to prove his value and force an end to the hostilities. But that doesn't mean he will do it for him.

KorvinStarmast

2017-12-12, 02:50 PM

The flashback scene that depicts the battle that arose when Nale tried to assert that he should rule the Empire of Blood, not the dragon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html), shows Tarquin fighting Nale and Malack fighting on Tarquin's side against Nale's group, specifically Sabine. It would seem from that scene that Tarquin offered and received better loyalty from Malack than from his son. That he keeps trying to get Nale to come back "on side" is the kind of optimism (in the face of facts) that we more frequently see from Elan.

Tarquin and Malack shared their "behind the scenes" rule of the Empire for some years. They were a solid partnership, for the most part, even though all of Tarquin's compadres (Vector Legion?) shared on screen annoyance with his grandstanding.

It's difficult to tell who he prefers: I'd lean toward Malack at the point in the story where OoTS enters the picture. He's still solidly partnered with Malack, but he's trying to get Nale to join back in to the team that he was once a part of.

Keltest

2017-12-12, 03:10 PM

Tarquin wants to have his cake and eat it too. Like Elan, what he wants to happen isn't particularly plausible, because there are some pretty legitimate reasons why it wouldn't work. Unlike Elan though, that isn't going to stop him from trying to make it happen. I don't think that he doesn't care about Malack and Nale's conflict so much as he doesn't want it spilling over into his agendas, which happen to include both of them. If they feel the need to snipe and posture at each other, whatever, that's their business, as long as they don't interfere with his.

Jasdoif

2017-12-12, 07:54 PM

He could just have plausibly been lying to Nale there. Frankly, while I doubt that Tarquin would have been particularly happy if Malack had murdered Nale, i doubt he would be particularly broken up about it either. If Nale couldn't find a reason to keep Malack from attacking him even after everything Tarquin did to help, he wasn't really worth keeping alive anyway. As he said, he was giving Nale a chance to prove his value and force an end to the hostilities. But that doesn't mean he will do it for him.Mmm...I think Tarquin would've been irritated at first if Malack killed someone Tarquin wanted alive, like he was with Nale for killing Malack.

Tarquin would've gotten over that, though. Even in the extremely unlikely case where Malack vehemently abandoned Tarquin the way Nale did, Elan getting "revenge against the monster who killed my twin" would've looked like a good middle arc in the story Tarquin saw himself in; Tarquin would still see a use for leaving Malack alive (well, not-destroyed) in that scenario.

Dovetail

2017-12-15, 10:15 PM

I'm not sure Tarquin has any true healthy relationships that go beyond whether those people are able and willing to give him what he wants, even for his friendships/relationships that he thinks are meaningful. When Elan disobeyed Tarquin's plans for the narrative, Tarquin's response was to threaten him with Nale's fate. Clearly his affection for even people like his favorite son, Elan only extends as far as they do what he wants. I don't see why this should not also be true for how Tarquin interacted with Malack, or Nale, or even Laurin and Miron Shewdanker.

woweedd

2017-12-17, 11:00 AM

OK, just a reminder to everyone: Tarquin doesn't give a ****. About anyone. As far as he's concerned, he and Elan might as well be the only people in the world, or, at least, the only ones who actually matter as anything other than pawns to accomplish his grand vision. Everyone else, to him, is nothing more than a collection of story conventions, all leading up to his grand confrontation with his son. Even Xykon, who's planning to destroy the world, is, to him, nothing more than a side-villain to his struggle with Elan, even though everything points to things being the other way around. He's willing to kill Elan's entire team, because he believes the rules of stories are more powerful than a well-organized team. He may be smarter than Nale, but he's not any wiser. Ultimately, just like Nale, he thinks the entire world revolves around him, literally, in Tarquin's case, and is unable to accept evidence to the contrary. Even Nale's able to accept when it's time to cut his losses, whereas Tarquin is unable or unwilling to realize that, even to Julio, he's nothing but a B-List villain.