Rac, you may have thought of this already, but it just now came to me as I was reading all the feedback. (You can blame Ann if I'm treading on your brainpaths.)
What if Nor, who is driven by personal greed and lust for power, isn't the worst villain in this story? What if it's Rae Et? What if she is driven by some twisted principle that won't let her quit? In that case, Nor becomes her puppet, her "hands and feet" in the conflict. He also becomes expendable.
Which would also mean that taking out Nor, by either death or capture, means a setback for the bad guys but not victory, not unlike the capture of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Horrible thought! What if Talan has a chance to capture Nor but for one reason or another becomes totally, completely, absoutely certain that a public trial would simply prolong the violence, but that Nor's death would cripple the rebellion? Would she hold to her principles even then? Would she uphold the law even though she might be convinced it would cost more lives?
That's a hard choice to make, and it would be even worse if Clark had to make that choice. Maybe that's his personal Rubicon; not taking a random life, any life, someone he doesn't know and who hasn't tortured him, but killing Nor, hand-to-hand or at least face-to-face. What would Clark do if faced with that choice?
And could he live with the consequences, irrespective of his choice?
