Question:
Do you think Lacroix was a good
father/master to Nick and Janette?

Wendy

What a good question! LaCroix was what some might call a dysfunctional parent, with control freak tendencies. While I do not discount the misery he has given Nick, such as burning a cure for vampirism in "1966", and destroying Nick's dog, Raleigh, out of jealousy, in "Blind Faith", I believe LaCroix does what he does out of concern/love and companionship from his children. Also out of a desire not to have to go through eternity alone. This explains to me why LaCroix is so threatened by Nick's feelings for Nat. Nat gets the attention from Nick that LaCroix craves from his favorite son. I feel LaCroix, in a warped way, is quite protective of Nick and Janette. LaCroix would never, ever admit such a mortal feeling as love, but mess with his family... and watch out! So, in essence, I think LaCroix tries to be a good parent.

Michelle Bischof

Well, he wasn't exactly the kind of Father you could run to for comfort, but he was a good protector. He saved Janette before he brought her across and he's rescued Nick before, like from that bounty hunter in "The Code". I guess it depends on what you consider a "good" father is.

Corissa

Of course LaCroix is a good father. Who else would put up with that crap Nick has been giving him for centuries? I would have slain him a long time ago. LaCroix loved Nick and Janette so much that he gave them that gift because he wanted to be with them forever. And let's face it they treated him like a two thousand piece of crap, Poor LaCroix :( Janette was better than Nick was to him but she was not always great. Now I'm not saying LaCroix was right all the time, he did now and then go to extremes but I do believe he was the best kind of Father/master they could have.

Reva

This may sound strange, but yes I do believe Lacroix was a good father and master to Nick and Janette. Consider the following: Did he ever let them go hungry - no. Did he always provide shelter for them - yes. He taught them to make the most of what he had given them. In one episode he even made finding food a game. I believe his cruelty or abuse toward Nick stems from the fact that Lacroix believes Nick is wasting his powers because of his quest for mortality. Lacroix believes Nick is suppressing the best part of himself in order to pursue a futile goal. Therefore, like any good parent, he wants the best for his son.

Gin

Yes and no, he was a good father because he was always there for his children and was protective of them... but no because he was possesive and almost obsessed with them and would not let them go.

Sami Swan Thompson

Of course he was. Like all parents, he did his best. Some children are simply more difficult than others.

Wilma

Yes. He taught them the lessons they needed, no matter how hard it was. He tried to teach them to see life not in terms of years, but in terms of centuries. In vampire years, Nick and Janette were teenagers, just beginning to handle their independence, with guidance from LaCroix. LaCroix had no master to teach him through most of his vampire years. His lessons were learned the hard way. He was just helping them the best way he knew how.

Shontell

Yes, to the extent that a master can be good to its children.

Alisa

Yes I think that he is a wonderful father figure to them. In fact he has been more than a father, he has been a wonderful example, a strong figure to be reconed with and a wonderful confidant and protector.

Susan Ellen Field

Lacroix didn't always go about things in a nice way, but I think he truly loved his children, and always took good care of them.

Jill Schilling

First of all, let me state that I am not a Cousin, nor do I have Cousinly tendencies. However, I do think that in general Lacroix has been a good master, if this is defined as the way his children turned out. First of all, both Nick and Janette are still alive, after close to a millenium for Janette and over 7 centuries for Nick. In the FK world, this seems to be an achievement. Janette is a leader in the vampire community and seems to be content as a vampire (except for The Human Factor, which seemed out of character, IMO). Nick has been unhappy with life as a vampire for quite a while, but he seems to be predisposed to guilt and dissatisfaction. Both Nick and Janette have mastered the skills necessary to live as vampires, thanks to LC's teaching. However, Lacroix is not a perfect parent. He can be very cruel (flashbacks in Blind Faith, for example). And his reaction to Nick's search to become human is too strongly negative, I believe. If anything, his attempts to control Nick only backfire. The struggle between Nick and LC seems so similar to the struggle between a parent and a teenage son whose ideals and beliefs differ from his father's. I think LC should support Nick's choices, but he is being a typical parent in wanting Nick's values to mirror his own. If the first season eps were the only ones to consider, I'd probably say that LC was an horrible, abusive parent, but the Nick-Lacroix-Janette relationships are much more complex than that, and I think LC almost always acts out of what he believes is best for his children.

Farah

Yes, he was a good father. He wanted the best things in life for Nick and Janette although they often did not understand him or appreciate him. Lacroix's family is the most important aspect of his life and he will do anything to protect them and keep his family together. Sometimes Lacroix's approach to parenthood isn't the best, but who's perfect? Lacroix has a lot of patience with his children, from the way Nick treats Lacroix, it is amazing that Lacroix still wants him to come back to him.

Katherine

I think LaCroix was a fairly good master, especially towards Janette. You must remember, he helped her to escape an existence that she could not stand. He gave Nicholas what he wanted as well, though Nicholas tries to blame him for this decision. Unlike a few other vampires we have seen, LaCroix never abandoned his children, a dangerous thing to do. He tried to teach them the ways of a vampire, and Nicholas is much stronger for it, though he won't admit it. As to why LaCroix is such a good master, I must say that it was probably because of his early separation from his master, who wasn't all that knowledgeable in the first place (Divia killed her own master very early on, remember?). He was forced to learn the ways of a vampire by trial and error, and, like most parents, decided that it would be differently for his children. Though he may be cruel occassionally, I think LaCroix always had the well-being of his children at heart.

Sarah

Yes, I feel he did the best he could in the time he was in. He raised Nick the way he thought he should be raised, the way he was probably raised. Nick came out a very decent vampire with morals and convictions. He couldn't of done that without Lacroix.

Barbara

Lacroix seems to me to be Nicks conscience, he gives Nick one answer, then shows him another possibility. So in one way yes he is a good father/master. Janette was a more willing than willfull daughter. It seemed Lacroix was not as harsh with her. But man what a way to learn a lesson! Good question! Makes me glad I have the parents that I do.

Susan Bennett

I think he was a lousy father and an excellent master to Nick. A lousy father because he did everything he could to stop Nick from trying to attain the mortality he sought instead of helping him. Lacroix's constant refrain is that it is "impossible", yet his actions belie his words. He believed in the Myan cup cure, most likely believed in the Abarat which he destroyed, disrupted the acupuncture treatment in CB. Obviously it is possible for a vampire to become mortal again - Janette is the proof. Lacroix knows it is possible too - otherwise he would let Nick carry through with these "cures", find out they didn't work, and get discouraged with his quest. In a master/slave sense, Lacroix was an excellent master to Nick, for doing everything he can to keep Nick under his control. I think he is a better father to Janette, but that is because Janette accepts she is a vampire, and he basically leaves her alone. In a master/slave sense, Lacroix was also a good "master" to Janette. He did make her betray Nick in Bad Blood, and in the FD FB. Janette doesn't like having a master (FWTD), so he was probably pretty good at controlling her too.

Bari

LaCroix, overall, was a good father to Nick and Janette. He protected, educated, and supported them from the beginning. But most of us know that in time, children grow up and come to embrace their own ideals, so much strife occurs over time. The best example I can demonstrate LaCroix's instints for Nick would be the last episode of the series.

Sharon Bauman

Show me a parent who isn't dysfunctional, and I'll show you a parent who doesn't have children! Lacroix is probably the most interesting character in FK because of his contradictions. Yes, he's a good parent to Nick and Janette. I don't believe Lacroix brough over either Janette or Nick because he was rescuing them or giving them a great gift. I think he did it out of somewhat selfish reasons - he didn't want to be alone, and he wanted two people he could mold into "perfect" vampires. He saw qualities in Janette and Nick that he thought would be more fully developed when they were vampires. Yes, Lacroix was a good parent. He tried to teach Nick the cold reality of being a vampire. He put up with Nick's disdain for his new life, and for Lacroix for having brought him across. Lacroix treated Nick like a parent would a petulant child - with love, discipline, and patience. Nick could get on one's nerves always complaining about being a vampire and how he wanted to be mortal again! And Lacroix's relationship with Janette - he treated her more as an equal than as a "child". He saw in her - or it was always there and brought out by her new powers - some of his character: coldness; reveling in the hunt; acceptance of one's fate. Lacroix could also be cruel - as parents are, either intentionally or unintentionally - but Lacroix felt remorse many times for his handling of those situations in which he was cruel. And sometimes he was cruel out of love for his children, acting in what he believed were their best interests. And the true test for a parent is wanting to be with his "children" in spite of everything that has happened - and Lacroix truly wanted that! Having Lacroix for a father figure wasn't so bad. And I think Nick came to realize that toward the end of the series.

Pat Wilson

Hey! If someone drove a stake through your heart and you STILL came back for more I would call that some sort of freaky obsession. A good father? At times yes, teaching Nick the ways of the night and occasionally giving sound advise. Overall? I would have driven the stake through Nick's ungrateful black heart for real (Curiouser & Curiouser) if I were Lacroix!

Jennifer Renee

I think he is/was too controlling a father, this seems to drive Nick crazy. LC wants to run Nicks life for him. LC seems less interested in Janette, as if he has lost interested in her since he brought over Nick. All in all they are just another of the many disfunctional familys that seem to be everywhere.

Watcher

"Good master of his children" is a contradiction in terms. One can be a good master of things - it's really simple: keep them in good working (looking) order and put them to good use - but when it comes to people, well-treatment requires much more. Which "more", among other things, includes the knowledge when to let go and how to divide one's own needs from needs of the others (even though those others *are* your children). All in all, with people involved, something gets involved that is absent with things - to be precise, those peoples' wishes and dreams. And to take it into account doesn't come together with being a "master". That's why, once possession starts to concern people, "master" starts meaning "slave-owner", pure and simple - and in my eyes, it has never associated with anything "good". That is also why LaCroix / Nicholas problem doesn't seem resolvable: LC indeed strives to be as good a master for Nick as possible... but problem is, it is *not* possible - as long as Nick is still alive (even though technically he isn't). It hurts them both: Nick is hurt by LC's possessivenes, whereas LC suffers from Nick's "ungratitude" he can't understand (not in the beginning, anyway). The fact that said possessiveness is interwoven with genuine attachment and love only complicates things further (not only LaCroix would not admit it - it takes him time even to realize it; meanwhile, acknowledging and at times even following it can bring him closer to who he believes to be absolutely and irrevocably his... though I still don't think they would ever agree on the main issue of their differences).

Karen

Keeping in mind the time from which Lacroix originally came across, and aware of at the very least some of the customs and attitudes of that time, then yes, Lacroix was the best he could be as a father/master. Remember, he was a general in an army that was not known for its humanity not only toward other peoples, but it's own soliders. True, he might have changed a bit with the times, but I don't think that would be in his nature.