the terrans and protoss worked together in eye of the storm? why couldn't the T, P, and Z work together against the fallen one? Maybe the armageddon mission in Utter Darkness, only now there's a real chance of winning
Printable View
the terrans and protoss worked together in eye of the storm? why couldn't the T, P, and Z work together against the fallen one? Maybe the armageddon mission in Utter Darkness, only now there's a real chance of winning
Because it's a cartoonish invention that comes out of nowhere (no pun intended) and is introduced for the sole purpose of being an antagonist, and a perfect and unquestionable antagonist at that. (Unless she was a misunderstood victim, of course.)Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
In general, a "villain" is just a writing technique: It's a simplistic way of introducing adversity and conflict, and usually unambiguously clear-cut as the antagonist. Ain't nobody getting the "Vengence of the Void" expansion where we get to play as little voidlings and your command center is a black hole or something.
Yes, yes, the Dark Void is evil, no doubt. It's just a silly cartoon, that's what I don't like about it and don't want it to blunder into the StarCraft universe.Quote:
I mean, universal genocide of all sentient life seems pretty unambiguously evil to me.
Well, you're right, for now we don't know how much we're supposed to take as a grand plan and how much is coincidence. But it's all been said before by now, so check those older posts again. Basically, Tassadar's ghost says that the overmind was "courageous" and essentially left Kerrigan as an attempt to save the situation. But Kerrigan is never shown to be in control of anything or even say anything remotely intelligent, quite on the contrary, what with her embracing the end and all. So if the overmind thought that Kerrigan would have a chance and doing something useful, then we're left with a plot that works only because of an extreme coincidence of very implausible events: Kerrigan apparently has no idea what she's supposed to do, and the only reason that Zeratul and Raynor know is because [insert previous posts: prophecy, ghosts, convenient artifacts, etc. etc.]Quote:
Right, and the Overmind didn't engineer a situation where Raynor and Valerian would find a Xel'Naga artefact to deinfest Kerrigan either, so why bring it up?
Alright, so it wasn't a cunning plan, granted. But as I said above, what WoL did turn out to be was an extremely unlikely chain of implausible events. If the overmind only sort of gave the Kerrigan idea a shot because it was the best he could do, then this doesn't pay off anywhere in WoL at all, because nobody is aware of this. So the fact that despite everyone's ignorance and considerable opposition interests, Kerrigan still ends up in a position where she can fulfill the overmind's hopes at salvation just comes unexpected and unmerited.Quote:
I thought you'd agreed that there wasn't a cunning plan to the Overmind's actions either? If there was, what was it?
So maybe it's not the overmind's roulette, but a Reader's Roulette or something, if that makes sense.
They could, but it'd be bloody boring, it's been done to death, and it'd just be complete creative bankruptcy. Why bother with a campaign at all if you have nothing interesting to tell? Just make it an online only arena game. It'll still be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthYam
Wait, I misunderstood you, too. Again, the overmind is a huge threat for the Terrans and Protoss alike and certainly deserves being fought with the toughest means available. But he's not "evil" in the Disney sense of just being a bastard because the story needs an antagonist. The Zerg have goals and drives that are part of their nature and fit with their backstory, and they generally make for a believable party in the Koprulu sector and in the narrative universe as a whole. The very fact that their goals go counter the Terran's need for survival is what drives the story, but such is exactly the purpose of good writing: Establish several factions whose interests create conflict. I still wouldn't call the Zerg malevolent or "evil" (such a juvenile word anyway). I'm sure they would claim they're doing a good thing, and we simply don't have any models for ethics between different sentient species. Hostile, territorial, aggressive, yes. Evil? Leave that for Austin Powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
(If you will, Mengsk is probably more clearly "evil" than the Zerg; in SC1 he craves personal power at the expense of people who trust him, and we have the whole "see the sector burn" thing. Because we have a good understanding of human values, we can see his desire to burn his fellow humans if he cannot rule them as something malevolent.)
Again, like the Overmind in StarCraft.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
To elaborate, the Overmind is an incredibly better character than the Dark Voice, but it was still evil and still existed to be the villain.
But I don't understand why you feel that Kerrigan needs to know about this? All that is needed is that Kerrigan work to prevent the Dark Voice from controlling the Zerg, and if Brood War has shown us anything, it is that Kerrigan wishes to be sole master of the Swarm. She opposed Daggoth, the New Overmind and the UED for it, what makes you think that if uninformed of the Overmind's vision she'll hand the Swarm over to the Dark Voice?Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
Such relative morality is inherently irrelevant since it can justify anything. Just because a group believes something is right does not make it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
I disagree that this is necessarily a bad thing. True, a purely evil villain is a simplistic way of generating conflict. However, the entire value of a story lies in the conflict it generates as well as its resolution. Let's take a look at Harry Potter as an example (since it is a famous, fairly universally recognised story), Voldemort is unambiguously evil - being a racist who uses dark magic and going so far as to use the title 'Dark Lord'. And at the same time, all the interesting developments in the story occur as a result of his actions or from the heroes' efforts to defeat him.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
That's the same problem I have with how this story is playing out. There are quite a lot of (or too many rather) convenient events (or "essential coincidences" as FT put it earlier) that just happen. One example of this being that the real Overmind seems to be getting exactly what it wants without it really having to lift a finger and lo and behold, it's goal also has the dual purpose of defeating a Big-Bad that has just suddenly cropped up.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
FT mentioned in a previous post that in any story there are things that will have to verge on the incredible (read as unbelievable) to sustain our interest. Exactly when something crosses over that line into incredibility (I call it a "BS threshold") is very much a subjective thing. I guess all we can do now, is just chalk what has happened so far as "shit happens" and leave it at that.
"Evil" is such a nebulous and subjective concept. You can't really begin to define it objectively because it needs a subjective reference/starting point. Evil is really just something that prevents or is in opposition of the way of life (with varying degress) of a particular individual or group. The Zerg are evil to everyone else because their actions are quite definitive and obvious - they are either killing or denying their way of life by replacing it with their own. Everyone else is evil to the Zerg because they are refusing, resisting and outright preventing their ideal of perfection, their way of life, in their attempts to kill them. Saying which one of these as being objectively more evil is impossible since it is dependent on the frame of reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
SC1 was really good at exploring the nature of evil, especially in regards to the use of 'necessary evils'. It was represented as Mengsk in the Terran campaign, Kerrigan in the Zerg campaign and as Tassadar in the Protoss campaign. For Mengsk, it was the promise of action against an inept institution who was doing nothing against the greater evil of the Zerg and Protoss destroying their worlds at the cost of being uncompromising in its vision. For Kerrigan, it was the promise of a new perspective and potential victory at the cost of all the troubles that rampant individualism could potentially bring to a unified and collective organisation that is the Zerg. For Tassadar, it was the promise of survival and victory against an implacable enemy at the cost of potentially destroying an established way of life that only came about due to extreme hardship and the fear of sliding back into that rut.
wings of liberty does do it to an extent. Zeratul flat out states "justice demands that she die for her crimes." If kerrigan wasn't needed to stop the Dark Voice, zeratul and raynor wouldn't have thought twice about killing her.
and in a way, it is possible for the dark voice to have more depth
After the death of the protoss at the start of the aeon of strife, the dv became disillusioned with his breatheren, and came to the conclusion that they needed to be reborn in a way that they would be "more natural" and "more perfect" for such a harsh universe. As such, he forces the zerg to destroy his breatheren and tries to merge them with the protoss via void energy so as to create a xel naga that would be more open to his vision of nihilism and destruction
also, the hidden evil was foreshadowed in dark origins. duran mentioned his "hidden power" master, and we all knew it was related to the hybridization of the zerg and protoss. We are only now beginning to see the nature of this threat, but he was foreshadowed and isn't quite "out of nowhere".
Well, again, because if she doesn't know what's at stake, then the events of WoL are random and unmerited. It's not like Kerrigan's control of the swarm, or any of her actions at all, for that matter, are shown to work towards saving everyone from the hybrids. On the very contrary, Kerrigan flat out wants "to embrace the end when it comes". You're right, in principle Kerrigan could have been the overmind's last hope without her knowing, but that idea simply falls flat on its face with the way WoL plays out.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
That's true, and I never said I wanted to justify anyone. As I said, everyone has every right to try and stamp out the Zerg, because they pose an existential threat to everyone. But just as you and I probably never consider the morality of killing game for food, I would prefer not to apply a term like "evil" to a scenario that can be better descibed with less subjective terms (like "hostile", "aggressive", "territorial", etc.). It's just a small peeve, but the point is that in SC1 you can play all three campaigns and invest in what's going on, which would be less satisfying if you were asked to work for someone who is a flat-out cartoon evil overlord.Quote:
Such relative morality is inherently irrelevant since it can justify anything. Just because a group believes something is right does not make it right.
Well, that's just my take on it. Sure, the Zerg were clearly the "antagonist faction", but they still felt a bit more significant than just the cardboard cutout requisite threat. Again, the good writing manages at once to create conflict and make every part of the scenario interesting in its own right. By contrast, a stereotypical "pure evil villain" isn't usually very interesting because there's nothing to learn from or relate to his motivation.
Anyway, fine, call the overmind "evil" if you like, but I hope you appreciate the qualitative differences between the SC1 overmind and the WoL Dark Void.
Yes, sure. The overall value of a story is comprised of many parts, and if you have enough interesting things to say about your heros, you can get away with a two-dimensional villain. Or even if the entire value of your story lies in the detail and richness of the narration, as in the Lord of the Rings, and all your plot elements are right out of Black and White's Collection of Teenage Hero Clichés, you can still get away with it because you can make something great out of it. It's just that a) StarCraft had created a precedent of a throughout well-constructed story in SC1 and some of us had expected something equally impressive this time, and b) that WoL just doesn't have a lot else to make up for it, story-wise.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. peasant
I hope you don't take everything I say as absolutes, everything is in the context of this discussion and I don't always point out that in other types of writing there are other ways of doing things.
Ughh, yeah, maybe. Just ask yourself, did you feel engaged by that plot? Did it really make you think about the nature of evil and about justice? I mean sure, there was this obvious dramatic choice at the end, but the whole idea of having to save Kerrigan because of the prophecy doesn't actually ever come up outside the crystal missions! So... if you really want to read all that into WoL and you have a great experience, fine, knock yourself out, but it could have been handled a lot better...Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthYam
The Dark Voice is shaping out to be a credible threat (As in he might be simplistic but still has a real chance of killinating everyone.) I mean, the guy has DURAN and MENGSK (two magnificent bastards) on his payroll, which isn't exactly an insignificant achievement. What's more, blizz confirmed the overmind was never noble (just that his consuming tendencies were redirected the way the dv wanted). Kerrigan still needs to face her guilt for all the monsterous crimes she comitted, and that is great storytelling potential
That's a lot to attribute to a single quote, especially one that is largely unexplained and quite out of character for the Kerrigan that was introduced in the original game. I don't think it's fair to judge this part without playing Heart of the Swarm, at the very least.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
As a mater of fact I have considered the morality of killing game for food. I think it is acceptable, as is the inverse killing of humans by predatory animals, even though I understand wanting to avoid or prevent such deaths. In fact, I think it's the near decimation of predatory animals out of preventative self-preservation that is by far the least moral of those. Anyway, the Zerg aren't just feeding on other species, they're completely wiping them out. And more than that, the Overmind is capable of higher thought, of self-examination.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
You mean that the Overmind was awesome and that the Dark Voice is probably the worst character introduced in the series? Oh yeah, I totally agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
again, the DV was foreshadowed in brood war. also, I'm willing to see how things turn out. he may very well have more depth. then again i was more of a fan of how threatening and fucked up the villains were.
That's curious. Would you call flesh-eating viruses that feed off and most likely kills any living organisms it encounters not evil or immoral because they are not sapient? Isn't what you're saying relative, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
At the least, you can argue that the Zerg are not exactly out to destroy all life (or that's how they were initially conceived - they wanted their ideal of perfection) and those that they do attack (which they do so only to absorb there traits) can be seen as a form of 'improvement' in the long-run, since they give their 'victims' the benefits of the many Zergy traits they've accumulated.
No, I wouldn't consider it relatively moral or immoral, I'd just consider it as completely lacking the quality of morality, like an avalanche or a tornado.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Their victims are dead, the Zerg are simply using their genetic code to create more Zerg. As for the Infested, from what we've seen they're really screwed. Not only have we seen Infested Terrans begging for death, but the others we've seen are either living explosives, or slow and crippled from harmful mutations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
'Course the thing about the Overmind consuming all life is lifted from Tassadar. I'm assuming he's a credible source, but he might not be.
Right, so the virus is amoral. When we are looking at the Zerg however, they too are a victim (it's a poor word choice I know, but I hope you know what I'm getting at) of their nature; In this case it's their assimilation of other species. Question is: Are you saying that the Zerg had stopped being amoral because of the Overmind, a gestalt representation of the nature of the Zerg, being sapient?Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
That is a somewhat strange assumption you have about how the Zerg assimilate aliens. That description of killing everything to use their genetic code to create more Zerg and in turn to get more genetic code, is more akin to WH40K's Tyranids (although one can debate whether the Zerg really are exact rip-offs or not) than Zerg.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
Assimilation of alien species by the Zerg originally required their hosts to be alive so that they could be merged with a Zerg symbiote which would then be used to produce generations of offspring that would then eventually culminate in the desired Zergified form.
Infestation can be seen as a form of combat-assimilation where there is no time to incorporate the genetic material properly and as a way to support the Zerg army in pacifying resistance - hence the problems you noted. It is supposed to be "horrific" because it's application is for war-time use.
Tassadar's quote about the Overmind is a "to-be-expected" reaction after being told that the Overmind forcefully assimilates beings that it thinks are strong, especially when it thinks they are the strongest. Afterall, he is not free from bias, no matter how credible he appears to be. Tassadar speaking on behalf of the Overmind does not necessarily mean that that is exactly what's going to happen. Who knows, the Overmind may well have just stopped after assimilating the Protoss. Unlikely, sure, but stranger things than that has happened, so why not? ;)
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
That's true, but those original Zerg no longer exists, its most similar counterpart in the current Swarm is the larva, which mutates into the desired forms. Of course it's true that some original creatures need to be assimilated for the correct genetic structure to be recorded into the Swarm, but that's not exactly ideal either, is it? Like the colonial European powers bringing civilisation to the lesser people of America, Africa and Asia, even if there are actual benefits from the exploitation, the deprivation of freedom isn't exactly moral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Possible, but Zeratul doesn't disagree, and he's had insight into the Overmind's thoughts. Come to think of it, there's also the Overmind's own quote that after assimilating the Protoss, "Thenceforth shall all feel the wrath of the eternal Swarm... For the hour of judgement is come!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Sure, the Overmind may be responsible for perverting the nature of the Zerg through its intellect and it's ensuing actions are therefore subject to moralising, but the mandate for assimilation was not borne from an 'intellectual exercise' insofar as your example of the European powers "civilising lesser" people.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
It is a natural and fundamental part of what being a Zerg is, which you said previously was an amoral action if there was no higher intelligence guiding it. Would you still call the Zerg evil if they were just as successful (with assimilation being a key basis for that success) as they are now, but without the Overmind?
Zeratul is likewise as biased as Tassadar is - of course he would agree with Tassadar. He's just putting his own perspective on what he saw of the Overminds' mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
At the time, (as WoL has pretty much confirmed that universal destruction was the goal of the directive manipulated Overmind) the Overmind quote can be interpreted a number of ways - one of which being the possible destruction of the whole universe. It probably held no more significance than just being rhetoric and exuberance from the Overmind at the thought of nearing it's goal (not to say that it wasn't full of pure win :D).
Without the Overmind, or Cerebrate, or Kerrigan or anything like them? No, I wouldn't call them evil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
:D Come on... you know it means what it says. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Actually, interesting you bring up European colonization of the world -- would you say that all those Europeans were "evil"? With hindsight I'm sure we all agree that lots of regrettable things happened and that we look on differently today, but really, was everyone in the past "evil"? Again, "hostile", "aggressive", "territorial", "expansionist" -- granted, no doubt. We would certainly disapprove of similar actions if they were to happen today. But I hope we also know enough about history to appreciate that the situation was a bit more complex than warranting the simplistic label of "evil". I would also hope that fictional stories, even in video games, are able to accommodate something slightly more complex than a Disney "evil", and that the Zerg in SC1 might go a little bit in that direction. Of course, with only 30 mostly gameplay driven missions there are always limitations, but I'd like to think that there can be some genuine depth even behind the Zerg.
That's a good quote. I don't really know what to make of it, and I would like to attribute it to the writers being carried away by their desire to create a dramatic moment. I don't really see how it fits - when did anyone ever speak of judgement? Who even wants to judge anyone? And why is there talk of "wrath" -- who has been wronged and has any reason to be wrathful? All this doesn't really add up. But if you look at geek scifi/scifan rhetoric, you find words like "wrath", "revenge" and "vengeance" thrown around soo liberally that I fear that they're just the junior writer's go-to words for creating drama, rather than a conscious effort. ("Revenge of the Sith" anyone? What do they have to be vengeful for?? It's never shown that they've ever been treated badly or unfairly.)Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
So yes, that overmind phrase does make the overmind sound evil, and I'd rather pretend it didn't happen because the story would have been better without it. Nothing is perfect, I suppose.
Of course not, 'being evil' and 'committing evil' are entirely different things. I was bringing up the example as immoral action, to counter the assertion that Zerg assimilation made the base species 'better' and using that as justification.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
I think you're mistaken here. Wrath is only extreme anger, much like 'fury' which is another word often used to describe the Swarm, it has nothing to do with being wronged. It just means that the Zerg's aggression and violence will be felt by all. As for the hour of judgment, I expect that's an expression likely associated with Christian mythology, about Jesus Christ returning to judge the souls of the dead and usher them to their final destination. I doubt it's a reference to the judgment so much as the end of the world. Obviously it isn't a good expression for the Zerg to use, but then they aren't even really speaking English anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
You're right, no revenge here. But the same can be asked about anger and fury: Why are the Zerg angry or furious? I mean, I can see why they'd be rampaging wildly (in order to spread and expand), but what do they have to be angry about? I still think that "wrath" is one of those words given to scifi writers in a big go-to box for dramatic effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
I can see why in the "Wrath of Khan" Khan was angry. In the "Wrath of Kane" I'm already a bit more confused (if anyone, it's the GDI who should be angry, not Kane). Hm. Does anyone know any other "wraths"? "Grapes of Wrath", maybe, though I guess the Israelis were really pissed.
Anyway, as I said, I don't think that overmind line is a very good part of the SC1 dialogue...
You should also add that it (Zerg assimilation) is only immoral when there is a higher intelligence guiding (ie: the Overmind) that action since Zerg assimilation is actually inherently self-justifying (it's what is natural to them originally) and therefore amoral.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
It was just a flowery phrase which has no deeper meaning. It's much like someone saying "I OWNZZ ALL U MOTHERF****S!" when you you think you've gained the upperhand over a difficult opponent. As I said before it was just rhetoric and over-exuberance. Sapient beings are known to do these things from time to time. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by hack59
If you had to attach any significance to that line, the Overmind is just saying, to itself no less, that "if you thought the Zerg are dangerous now, then you know nothing of the might (the "wrath/fury" it was talking about) I shall soon possess. Beware all who oppose me!" Typical megalomania ranting, you see. ;)
If the Overmind was really going to seriously destroy everything from that point on it was doing a piss-poor job of it since the Protoss where embroiled in civil war on the very planet it had just successfully invaded and it could not even capitalise on that to finish them off?!
Nah, it's always immoral, except insofar as it is a necessary part of their survival (and we can surely agree that the Zerg have gone way beyond mere survival) I simply don't believe a being incapable of self-awareness can make decisions based on morality, and therefore judging them based on a notion of morality is futile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
So Tassadar and the Overmind both claim that the Zerg will bring about the end of life, in their respective campaign climaxes, but you dismiss both quotes. I really have nothing more to offer on the subject, I'm afraid.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
:confused: What you're saying here does not seem to make sense. You're saying that fundamental Zerg nature (irrespective of Overmind influence, mind you) is always immoral and then you say immediately after that it is amoral (where you can't judge them because of their nature) because we cannot impose morality on something that does not have sapience (self-awareness is a poor word since all living creatures are 'self-aware' on some level) - something the Zerg did not have until the Overmind.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
Your statement is implying that you can now judge the morality of something if they are becoming successful in what they do (something beyond survival).
Let's look at a parrallel, here. The 'red-imported fire ant' is an extremely aggressive and invasive ant species. Because of this, they are a capable of causing a major ecological impact. They are also highly successful and continue to expand as if out of control even against human attempts to eradicate them. What these ants are doing is beyond survival. So they must be evil to you based on your initial claim, which you then disregard since the ants have no sapience. See the confusion you've brought up?
The Zerg are essentially 'up-scaled' versions of these 'red-imported fire ants' - they're just larger and more 'successful' on an intergalactic level. I know the Zerg differ in that they have an Overmind conveniently being a figurehead and sapient director of that race, but the inherent Zerg nature to assimilate was initially for survival and generally if the need for survival is curtailed, the next step is to 'succeed' and 'expand'. The Zerg may still have been an uncontrolled menace to other living beings even without the Overmind. If so, you cannot say it's always immoral because that fundamental Zerg nature is not capable of sapience and therefore, as you said, we cannot make morality judgements on it. :confused:
You should know by now FT that I dismiss nothing offhandedly or so simply. I understand your point of view - it makes sense. I just like to play devil's advocate is all and to put a different spin on things - argument for arguments sake. Sorry, if you got put off by it. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
Besides, hearsay from two biased sources such as the Protoss (not to mention your own bias of believing everything the Protoss say is absolute truth) and one throwaway remark by the Overmind is hardly conclusive evidence of actual intent until we actually see it. Although the intent is implied (heavily as you suggest), the notion of it was only presented at those particular points and nowhere else. There is some leeway for interpretation (or reinterpretation if you will, in keeping with the theme of SC2 :p).
On a separate note: Why would any sapient being want all life destroyed anyway? There's nothing to gain from this except bragging rights which is funny cos there would be no-one to brag to except yourself and your underlings. That wouldn't be much fun for long. :p
Sorry, I probably explained myself poorly. First off there is the distinction between doing something evil and being evil. Nearly all life competes against other life, most life feeds off of other life, it is essentially impossible for anything to live without harming other things. Or it is nearly impossible to live without doing some evil. So we classify these according to degrees. People who are generally fine with killing animals to eat their meat find doing the same to humans abhorrent, people who reject meat altogether are fine with consuming vegetable life, and so forth. And then there's the aspect of need. Even if they think cannibalism is normally unacceptable, people will be more understanding if, for example, you survive some crash or another and find yourselves stranded in some desertic region without anything else to eat. Desperation, the essential need to eat to survive, renders it more morally acceptable than some upper class American in the middle or a metropolis killing and eating his neighbours. On the opposite end of the spectrum, people who feel it is perfectly fine to kill animals for food, may feel uncomfortable with setting traps on one's land to keep animals from 'trespassing'. And they might not approve of killing some endangered species so you can sell it's teeth or horns or testicles or whatever to make some scientifically unfounded aphrodisiac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
The morality of the action itself remains unchanged, killing is killing, but the judgment on the morality of the perpetrator is different. Most civilisations agree, it is wrong to murder another human being, but those civilisations would also seldom judge someone as evil if they killed in self-defence, for example. I don't think it is the action that differs in morality, I think it is the individual who needs to be judged on the basis of all committed actions and the circumstances surrounding those actions. It is my perspective that actions can be clearly defined as either good or evil, in something like the Kantian imperative, because actions are simple. People, on the other hand, commit innumerable actions every day of their lives, and all those actions are the consequence of numerous causes and circumstances, which makes it harder to so blithely categorise people as good or evil. And returning to the subject at hand, that is why hack is annoyed at villains like the Dark Voice, because their character can be defined as absolutely as a single action taken in a vacuum.
So that's why I would call the Zerg evil for their path of assimilation and eradication across the stars, whereas I would consider that same process of assimilation acceptable (the action would still be immoral, mind you, but because it is necessary for their survival I would not judge the Zerg evil for doing it) so long as it was limited to reasonable development of their species.
Incidentally, this is also something of what's happened with human civilisation too. All those "Save the Earth" ideals are a natural aberration. Nature has conditioned us, as with all life, to overcome obstacles and multiply. The reason we are such a threat to the environment is because we've succeeded at what every other creature on the planet wishes it could achieve. But this does not mean that it is acceptable just because it is natural. Because we are capable or reason, because we are capable of conceiving of the future, because we are capable of forming concepts of morality, we can take a course of action that is unnatural and slow our development. The most destructive countries are not the ones where people are struggling for survival, this damage derives from desires rather than needs. That's why it can be judged more harshly, the evil we are doing is unnecessary, and we have the ability to choose not to do it.
So returning to the Zerg, it also comes down to choice. Without the self-awareness, it would be pointless to judge them as evil. They are what they are, and they do not have the ability to be otherwise. They'd just be a calamity to be stopped or evaded. To be good or evil requires that the creature in question be capable of making an enlightened choice. The Overmind gives the Zerg such an ability (though I guess there's some leeway, what with the Overmind's dubious freedom post-retcon) and the fact that they choose to give in to their nature despite the absence of any real need is why I judge them evil.
So what they do is evil, but lacking the sapience necessary to understand this, it would be futile. If they do have the ability to understand this, and choose to do so nonetheless, then would I judge them evil.
I hope this helped to clarify things ;).
Oh, I understand, I was just saying that I'd exhausted my resources on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Yes, but of course nearly everything we know of the story comes from such biased sources. For example, I noted in my commentary on The Fall that Tassadar seemed to have acquired an unfounded bias against the Judicator (I mean, on top of the founded reasoning against them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Conviction that they are the master race and that all lesser species can do nothing but mar perfection, maybe. The Overmind is Infested Hitler :P.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turalyon
Cool. I understand where you're coming from now. Much obliged. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
I know where you're leading to with this. People also use that reasoning to justify some of the plotholes in WoL, so why can't I? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
Wonder what happens next after that? *Overmind 'mentally' shrugs shoulders and walks off to get a hamburger* :DQuote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
This is exactly what I hope wouldn't be the case. From an outside view, this is the laziest way of creating opposition (as some internet film reviewer whose name escapes me put it, "enough with the innocent victims; tell us why someone is doing something"). From an in-universe view, it seems unnecessary and unmotivated. In the SC1 backstory the Zerg were merely described at seeking perfection (and purity of essence whatnot), but never that they were driven to exterrrminate all that is different. If you think about it, it's not a very sensible thing to want anyway: It's expensive and doesn't help you or advance your species. Given that the Zerg were engineered by some pretty clever people, this would be a very unexpected trait to develop, and we seem to be doing just fine without it. Sure, a "must kill everything" drive doesn't flat-out contradict SC1, but it's unnecessary, tacked-on and boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaticTemplar
If you want to use your example, Hitler's story is not interesting because his desire to create a master race, but because of the way that he interacted with society in a way that turned out to be way more shocking and terrifying than anyone would have expected if you had suggested this ten years earlier. It's a very interesting part of history, but not chiefly because of an evil villain.
Turalyon: About the overmind announcing its "wrath": Yes, I can see that it could be monomaniacal inner monologue. It's still a bit infantile (like those gamers shouting "omg i pwn u" or what not), and I would have found it more serious if he had said something more appropriate, but yeah, that works.
I hear all your saying and tend to think the same way as you, hack, but it's all a matter of taste in the end. Every villain's motivation in history (real or imagined) can easily be distilled down to a bullet point. Sure it may not make sense unless you look at details but it does make it a hell-of-a-lot easier to digest at any time, I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59
The Overmind did say something 'serious' right before that line. It mentioned that it now had a realistic chance of achieving it's ancient goal. That last line can be seen as an "exclamation mark" to hammer home that point. At the least, what the Overmind did say does 'sound' less infantile than "Eff yeah! I ownz u all!" or "Haha! I have the power! Everyone will bow to me or be destoyed!" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by hack59