A little HL thought experiment

[katallison]

So today I *finally* watched "The Innocent," which is, amazingly, one of the very few HL episodes I hadn't yet seen--amazingly, because it's the one with Callum Keith Rennie as Kimmie-of-the-Week (and may I just say, the man looks *damn* good with a big sword, to say nothing of the swirling black duster ... *guh*).

Anyway, here's the thought experiment, for all the HL mavens in the reading audience:

It seems to me from my viewing that what made Duncan finally realize there was no solution to the problem of Mikey (none, that is, except for the Methosian one: "Take his head, problem solved") was his discovery that Mikey had, in his Of-Mice-and-Men way, killed a couple of people without intending it, that he was incapable of controlling his actions or his strength. Up until then Duncan had been willing to go with Richie's let's-save-Mikey program, to the point of being willing to take on Tyler King to defend him. And then by the end of the episode, he'd come around to deciding to kill Mikey, and then letting Richie take that on.

Now, here's the thought experiment: if Duncan had come to this realization somewhat earlier in the episode, would he have stood aside and let Tyler King whack Mikey? It's clear that King didn't represent any immediate threat to Duncan himself, or to Richie; King's message was "Get out of the way and let me have this guy." Could Duncan have brought himself to refrain from intervening in the killing of an Immortal who, however innocent and helpless, however much under his protection, was capable of harming mortals? Could he have stood by and let that happen?

It may seem like a minor issue, but it's interesting to me as a question of how Duncan handles his sense of responsibility, how far he extends his authority. It would make an interesting story, anyway. (And I'm not saying this just because I would kind of, sneakingly, like to have seen Tyler King survive the episode ... maybe come back and, oh, say, buddy up with Methos ... ::self-thwack:: OK, sorry, hormones got away with me there.)

Comments

[unovis.livejournal.com]

: if Duncan had come to this realization somewhat earlier in the episode, would he have stood aside and let Tyler King whack Mikey?

Once MacLeod had driven King off his own property, he'd have thought about it. He'd have compared Mikey to Cimoli and Ursa and maybe the defenses he'd offered on behalf of Kenny. He'd most likely still decide it was his duty to kill Mikey rather than letting him wander off to be slaughtered.

Accepting responsibility (and acting as host) for an "innocent," even a deadly one, put MacLeod under an obligation to solve the problem himself. It would be a matter of humanity and manners. Let loose, unsupervised, Mikey might kill again before King got to him; he might suffer from hunger or confusion or exposure before he was killed. While he might not have interfered in a confrontation between Mikey and King, once he found out Mikey had no control over killing mortals, I can't see MacLeod, or Richie, either turning Mikey out like a stray puppy or leading him by the hand to King to be killed.

[killabeez.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with you. I think you've hit upon the key that makes the difference for Duncan in this situation. He accepted responsibility (and by extension, expected Richie to accept a share of the responsibility) in the same way he did with Ursa, and with Kenny, until he found out what Kenny really was. Tyler King was just an inconvenience -- and since Tyler decided to force the issue, a bit of sport on the side. *g* Also, I think Duncan would have seen Mikey's death at his hand or Richie's as more honorable, and therefore more desirable, than stepping aside and letting King kill him. The difference between putting a dog who's started biting people to sleep, and throwing him into an alligator pit.

Also, I totally agree with Melina. Even though I count myself among the CKR-appreciative, Tyler and Methos? Eh. Why? But Billy Tallent and Methos? I'm there. *swoons*