Q&A 12

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muspelli

Alright, thanks!

I think Blizzard is hammering home the point that Mengsk is so irredeemably evil because so many fans, after StarCraft I, seemed to interpret him as I have: pragmatic, a bit selfish and bad, but not downright malicious and evil. My experience might be different, but would we not all agree that this was the common (and in my opinion, more interesting, but I'll wait until Heart... to make final judgement) fan-interpretation prior to StarCraft II?

---

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "downright evil". Using a mass destruction weapon to kill millions without negociation and making extra sure no one escapes does qualify.
However, there was that general idea that Arcturus was someone you could live with. He may have committed mass murder without blinking, but he did so in times of war on the capital world of the enemy he had fought for a decade. He may be completely ruthless, but he didn't look like he would slaughter people at random - you don't expect him to activate psi emitters on a civilian planet just to test what happens, as the Confederacy did.

Though he wouldn't be a fair leader and opposing him would be dangerous, I imagined him as the sort of dictator that tries not to be too obvious about it: he calls rigged elections from time to time, pretends he is the guarantor of order or stuff like that, and has some genuine supporters among the people - as opposed to, say, a tyrant who governs through fear and is only supported by those who fear they'll lose their privilege when he falls.

In WoL... well I couldn't say. He is supposed to be a megalomaniac dictator that plans to kill all the loyal scientists working on the hybrids (which sounds unfathomly stupid to me, if only because anyone who knows the truth should realise they could come next), but political opponents are sent to New Folsom instead of being summarily executed and no one bothered Kate Lockwell.

Mengsk released several Changlings among his own troops. He is not the Conferates, but it was a start. Remember he also killed half of his Ghost operatives and allowed Narud's experiments.

Unlike Kimera said. I don't think anyone was trying to redeem Mengsk. The point is: when it comes to motivations, ambigous villains ("I want to protect humanity AND to have power to myself") are more interesting than purely evil villains, because pure selfishness makes a character feel vulgar and petty. Potentially leading the villain to be despised, instead of hated.

But if a pure evil villain is the writer's choice, then I rather enjoy a story with a wicked being that doesn't look obviously wicked all the time. Just think about it. Some psychopaths are charming, until the moment we are remembered of how much bloodshed they're capable of. Mengsk would feel much better if he appeared to be contraditory until the moment he remembered us he isn't able of anything like dignity. The way it is, he's just shameful all the time...

But regarding this specific last Q&A, I don't think they were pushing it to make him even more despised. This really fits the Mengsk we're shown in Flashpoint. Someone who's so paranoid he can't actually trust or bond with anyone.

Killing a lieutenent because of her questioning of orders is something a LOT of very ambigous real life leaders have effectiely done. Revolutions are messy. You don't want an invisible assassin to become your enemy in the middle of a political turmoil. Any "morally neutral" revolutionary leader would have done the same. The good ones wouldn't - and they all ended up like Ned Stark. Murdered by their goodness.

Having his family murdered was the very thing that turned Mengsk into a "revolutionary". I already expected that, since he already had the men who ordered the murders punished, the murderer herself could be the next in his plans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

Unlike Kimera said. I don't think anyone was trying to redeem Mengsk. The point is: when it comes to motivations, ambigous villains ("I want to protect humanity AND to have power to myself") are more interesting than purely evil villains, because pure selfishness makes a character feel vulgar and petty. Potentially leading the villain to be despised, instead of hated.

But if a pure evil villain is the writer's choice, then I rather enjoy a story with a wicked being that doesn't look obviously wicked all the time. Just think about it. Some psychopaths are charming, until the moment we are remembered of how much bloodshed they're capable of. Mengsk would feel much better if he appeared to be contraditory until the moment he remembered us he isn't able of anything like dignity. The way it is, he's just shameful all the time...

But regarding this specific last Q&A, I don't think they were pushing it to make him even more despised. This really fits the Mengsk we're shown in Flashpoint. Someone who's so paranoid he can't actually trust or bond with anyone.

Killing a lieutenent because of her questioning of orders is something a LOT of very ambigous real life leaders have effectiely done. Revolutions are messy. You don't want an invisible assassin to become your enemy in the middle of a political turmoil. Any "morally neutral" revolutionary leader would have done the same. The good ones wouldn't - and they all ended up like Ned Stark. Murdered by their goodness.

Having his family murdered was the very thing that turned Mengsk into a "revolutionary". I already expected that, since he already had the men who ordered the murders punished, the murderer herself could be the next in his plans.

---

The initial comment I made was simply that the Q&A clearly displayed Blizzard's current agenda of portraying him as a straight up villain. Case in point being that they could have chosen and combined a myriad of answers regarding his motivation for abandoning Kerrigan's unit on Tarsonis but only elected to choose those that individually would be classified in no uncertain terms as "evil" and/or "selfish" versus "amoral"; along with the remark about his willingness to sacrifice Valerian to further his own agenda and to save his own skin, which was completely unnecessary and unrelated to the original question. And further exemplified by everything else that Blizzard has put out as of late in relation to Mengsk and his activities.

Blizzard are, at this moment, uninterested in pursuing other aspects of the character. For instance, they introduced a new son for Mengsk; a major development in a man who we previously thought had no family. However, Blizzard has thus far failed to explore that relationship regularly and was only properly touched on in one instance; namely the book I, Mengsk. Moreover, the book was unusual with its sympathetic portrayal of Arcturus Mengsk and it was written by Graham McNeill; rather than Christie Golden, who seems to be Blizzard's current de facto author of choice and most frequent collaborator in developing the Starcraft universe. I, Mengsk was McNeill's first, and thus far only, foray into the Starcraft universe and he had never written for Blizzard either before or since; with I, Mengsk being a largely standalone novel with no connections with any other in the series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

Killing a lieutenent because of her questioning of orders is something a LOT of very ambigous real life leaders have effectiely done.

---

Wouldn't it be a lot more ambiguous if the possibility remained that Mengsk just wanted to avoid more loss of life by avoiding heading into a meat-grinder (the Zerg) they just unleashed by stopping the Protoss from interfering? If we look at Sc1 solely as a reference, a case can be made that Mengsk had no vindictiveness against Kerrigan at all and that leaving them was nothing more than just a simple, pragmatic action. Mengsk has none of this ambiguity whatsoever now.

I think both interpretations of Mengsk's actions could be valid, but personally I think I'm going to side with Tche on this one. In SC1, given Raynor's dramatic reaction, it was clear that Mengsk didn't have to leave her down there.

Quote:

---

Raynor
I can't believe he actually left her down there! I'm gone, and you'd better come with me. There's no tellin' who Arcturus'll screw over next.

Jim Raynor
Aw, to hell with you!

Arcturus Mengsk
You're making a terrible mistake. Don't even think to cross me. I've sacrificed too much to let this fall apart.

Jim Raynor
You mean like you sacrificed Kerrigan?

---

I don't think Raynor would have reacted that way if it was just a pragmatic sacrifice, though it could also be argued that Raynor is over-reacting and Mengsk's response of "you don't seem to realize my situation" is in fact valid. But Mengsk putting on a charming/rational face while having his occasional instance of megalomania is still interesting to me (as Tche said, if you're going to go "all evil" then this is the way to do it). But of course, Wings of Liberty picked neither directions, instead making him look like a buffoon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

Killing a lieutenent because of her questioning of orders is something a LOT of very ambigous real life leaders have effectiely done. Revolutions are messy. You don't want an invisible assassin to become your enemy in the middle of a political turmoil. Any "morally neutral" revolutionary leader would have done the same. The good ones wouldn't - and they all ended up like Ned Stark. Murdered by their goodness.

---

I agree with most of what you've said, but given the circumstances, not with this. Kerrigan have always followed her orders, doubts or no doubts, and there was no reason to believe she would turn against Arcturus any time soon. If anyone was to turn on Arcturus, that would have been Raynor - he was the one who was losing faith, he asked Kerrigan to disobey a direct order and it was Kerrigan who remained loyal.

Her doubts could have been enough for Mengsk to decide to make an example of her, instead of any other general. But if you stick strictly to her actions and behaviour, there was simply no reason to kill her there and then. She was not killed for what she had done or might do in the foreseeable future but, at most, because Arcturus thought she might reconsider her allegiance in a completely different situation. That's not pragmatism, nor a pre-emptive strike against someone about to challenge you - that's just turning on someone that is loyal to you on the ground that she might eventually prove dangerous in an hypothetical future. "Morally neutral" leaders don't kill people just because they have doubts but proceed with the mission anyway, if you are so amoral that being loyal to you is not enough, you are way into the evil zone already.

Now, Arcturus' actions make sense if you also factor that she was one of the ghost who murdered his family and that he was sending his troops a message - if you need a victim, you would choose someone who just objected about your orders over someone who didn't. But Kerrigan was not a threat in any way when she engaged the Protoss, and killing her didn't protect the Sons of Korhal against a tangible peril.

You make a good point, Telenil. I'd agree with you, if we were talking about "Phase One" - that is, taking out the Confederacy.

We have to keep in mind that 5 year old Sarah Kerrigan could blow heads with her telekinesis. Even with her powers diminished by the Confederacy, Kerrigan was probably the most lethal assassin Arcturus had ever known of. An emotionally damaged and unpredictable person, who was loyal to Arcturus because he saved her from slavery and representend a much better option than the Confederacy - and even then, she was questioning his orders.

If the "bitch", as he likes to call her, this bitch who could become a wild card and kill him at any moment just like she did to her father, was already disobeying him at Phase One, when they had a common enemy, when he was her savior, when he was much better than the Confederates...

...what would Sarah Kerrigan become when he started Phase Two - consolidating his power the only way a Confederate aristocrat knows how to, with brute force and oppression? If she was unhappy now, she would almost surely turn on him when it got crystal clear that she did not agree with his ways to rule a sector. He'd eventually have to kill her. Why not on Tarsonis?

I just read the Christie Golden books, but in Flashpoint it is clear he trusts Raynor (in 2500) much more than he ever trusted Kerrigan.

I'll get hands on my copy of I,Mengsk very soon, peasant. Then I'll tell you what I think :)

Turalyon, it is just as Grad said... plus, if it was reasonable to abandon Kerrigan for legitimate reasons, neither Raynor or even Kerrigan would understand what Arcturus did as treason.

Also let me add: I know it is a shock to read it in the Q&A, but in Flashpoint, Mengsk's dismissal of his son makes more sense. It is better explained; it is not (just) that he's ruthless and remorseless, but he is also paranoid. Anyone is a potential enemy to him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

We have to keep in mind that 5 year old Sarah Kerrigan could blow heads with her telekinesis. Even with her powers diminished by the Confederacy, Kerrigan was probably the most lethal assassin Arcturus had ever known of. An emotionally damaged and unpredictable person, who was loyal to Arcturus because he saved her from slavery and representend a much better option than the Confederacy - and even then, she was questioning his orders.

If the "bitch", as he likes to call her, this bitch who could become a wild card and kill him at any moment just like she did to her father, was already disobeying him at Phase One, when they had a common enemy, when he was her savior, when he was much better than the Confederates...

---

She never disobeyed. That's my point. She was expressing concerns about what they had to do, but followed her orders with skill and loyalty. She kept her faith after Arcturus sent the Zerg against millions of civilians and personally ensured they would die by intercepting the Protoss forces. If she rationalized mass murder, she may have rationalized oppression as well. Or may not, but no one could be certain at this point.
Plus, let us assume that Arcturus knew Kerrigan wouldn't accept his oppression. This means he wanted to kill her because he was about to turn ruthless tyrant and considered himself as such. If you are fully aware that you are about to turn "evil" and per-emptively kill those who might object at some point, you are not "morally neutral".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenil

Her doubts could have been enough for Mengsk to decide to make an example of her, instead of any other general. But if you stick strictly to her actions and behaviour, there was simply no reason to kill her there and then. She was not killed for what she had done or might do in the foreseeable future but, at most, because Arcturus thought she might reconsider her allegiance in a completely different situation. That's not pragmatism, nor a pre-emptive strike against someone about to challenge you - that's just turning on someone that is loyal to you on the ground that she might eventually prove dangerous in an hypothetical future. "Morally neutral" leaders don't kill people just because they have doubts but proceed with the mission anyway, if you are so amoral that being loyal to you is not enough, you are way into the evil zone already.

Now, Arcturus' actions make sense if you also factor that she was one of the ghost who murdered his family and that he was sending his troops a message - if you need a victim, you would choose someone who just objected about your orders over someone who didn't. But Kerrigan was not a threat in any way when she engaged the Protoss, and killing her didn't protect the Sons of Korhal against a tangible peril.

---

I happen to agree with this but let's just consider that this all make sense only if you look at the situation retrospectively as Mengsk wanting to kill Kerrigan, and her specifically, right from the beginning. Without their history illuminated, Mengsk's reasoning behind leaving Kerrigan could just have easily been an impersonal one (but no less evil, mind you), too. Here's an example:

Surely, Mengsk knew that the mission at New Gettysburg was going to be a suicidal one (I mean come on, could any Terran really believe they could stand their ground pincered between the Protoss and the Zerg when they've witnessed, first-hand, the sheer raw power of those alien invaders previously?) but was vital to the success of his plan to get rid of the Confederacy. To overcome the first hurdle (that the mission being suicidal on paper) of the mission, Mengsk would've needed to coax his men into a situation in which they could have believed there was a possible chance to succeed and the possibility of escape if things weren't pear shaped. His positioning of Kerrigan, his right hand and trusted confidant, as the leader of this mission has the twofold effect in not only increasing the chance of success of this gambit, but also to lull the men on the mission that there will be rescue if things go bad, improving their morale during the mission proper. Since, the ultimate goal is the ridding of the Confederacy and that New Gettysburg is the endgame to that goal, wouldn't any strategically minded person want to sacrifice their "Queen" for that "checkmate"? She fulfilled her purpose - the ultimate sacrifice for the hope of a better future.

The game itself doesn't really show it justice, but when the Zerg are unleashed at the end of the mission, Mengsk is required to either risk even more men than he bargained in order to rescue those that were already calculated previously by Mengsk as being "acceptable losses" (it was a crazy suicidal mission, afterall) or stand back and retain what forces he has left for the next plan of rebuilding and reorganising the Terran people. Which of these two options seems like a no-brainer to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

Turalyon, it is just as Grad said...

---

I know because I happen to agree with him as well. My previous line of questions were more about the possibility of providing an alternative (I hesitate to say better...) way to illustrate some real moral grayness or ambiguity (do not read as "Grimdark"). It's something that Sc1 had at its core and that WoL sorely misses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

plus, if it was reasonable to abandon Kerrigan for legitimate reasons, neither Raynor or even Kerrigan would understand what Arcturus did as treason.

---

Not sure what you mean by this or what relevance this would have. Isn't treason against the Confederacy what Arcturus and by association, Raynor and Kerrigan, been doing right from the start and (for Mengsk and Kerrigan) even before the games events?

Or did you mean "betrayal"? Either way, "betrayal" would always be legitimate for those who have the "ends that justify the means" mentality (yeah, I know it's evil and all but this is not what I'm on about) if it gets the job done. Lo and behold it did for Mengsk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

Surely, Mengsk knew that the mission at New Gettysburg was going to be a suicidal one (I mean come on, could any Terran really believe they could stand their ground pincered between the Protoss and the Zerg when they've witnessed, first-hand, the sheer raw power of those alien invaders previously?) but was vital to the success of his plan to get rid of the Confederacy. To overcome the first hurdle (that the mission being suicidal on paper) of the mission, Mengsk would've needed to coax his men into a situation in which they could have believed there was a possible chance to succeed and the possibility of escape if things weren't pear shaped. His positioning of Kerrigan, his right hand and trusted confidant, as the leader of this mission has the twofold effect in not only increasing the chance of success of this gambit, but also to lull the men on the mission that there will be rescue if things go bad, improving their morale during the mission proper. Since, the ultimate goal is the ridding of the Confederacy and that New Gettysburg is the endgame to that goal, wouldn't any strategically minded person want to sacrifice their "Queen" for that "checkmate"? She fulfilled her purpose - the ultimate sacrifice for the hope of a better future.

---

I see what you mean. This would make sense, too, with the benefit of making Arcturus less of a plain bastard. It arguably feels closer to what it is actually described in the game and Liberty's Crusade, and Raynor's defection is still justified.
I would personally find that a more interesting turn of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

Or did you mean "betrayal"?

---

Yeah, that's what I meant. I thought that "traição" meant literally the same as "treason", and embarrasingly falled for a "false friend". The word "treason" treasoned me :( I was very sleepy, forgive me for this and other moments when I hurt your language like this.

But what the phrase was supposed to mean is that, IMO, Raynor wouldn't get so pissed if it was obvious that there was no practical way to save Sarah and her forces without wasting many more lives.

I like you explanation. It is colorful and is as evil (or non-evil) as leaving her behind to get rid or her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenil

If you are fully aware that you are about to turn "evil" and per-emptively kill those who might object at some point, you are not "morally neutral".

---

It would be "morally neutral" if the tiranny was a necessary part of a greater, non-selfish plan to strenghten humanity against the alien menace and bring overall prosperity (lawful neutral?). Of course, the whole genocide part is downright evil, but can't you think of any political situation where tirany is the only way to maintain even the minimal amount of order or unity?

It may be that to Mengsk, the Sons of Korhal would naturally break into many minor groups without the original common enemy - that's what real life revolutionary forces do in times of peace. And these many groups could either a) start wars or economical opression against each other or more possibly b) even at peace, be too weak individually to have any form of defending against aliens, KMs and Confederate ressurgents.

When he founded the Dominion, Mengsk not only started commanding the whole Confederate space, but other powers immediatly joined in, attracted by the Dominion's size and power. Maybe, Koprulu is such a place where so much unity could never be attained by peaceful and democratic ways.

Ruthlessness and violence have consolidated many empires and countries. It was horrible then, but now most of these countries are greatful to be one big power rather than a handful of tiny principalities. I'm glad I'm part of Brazil instead of a tiny republic north of Uruguay, and Brazilians north-easterners are probably glad they're part of one of the world's biggest economies instead of another Guiana. I'm sure the same can be said about regions of UK and of the US. But this was achieved with oppression and war, not diplomacy.

Got my I, Megsk copy yesterday. Maybe I'll change my mind after reading it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

The word "treason" treasoned me :( I was very sleepy, forgive me for this and other moments when I hurt your language like this.

---

Don't worry, mate I've seen far worse butchers of the English language from those who claim to speak/write it as their first/native language.

Oh, by the way, I think your translation of "traição" fits better with "treachery" (deliberate betrayal of trust/ deceptive actions) than "treason" (primarily used to define someone betraying the country/nation). Either way, they both employ the action of betrayal, so you weren't "treasoned", you were "betrayed" or rather "misled". Sorry if I sound like a condescending schoolteacher - I didn't mean to. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

But what the phrase was supposed to mean is that, IMO, Raynor wouldn't get so pissed if it was obvious that there was no practical way to save Sarah and her forces without wasting many more lives.

---

I don't know about that. Raynor's behaviour could easily be explained by him being blinded to the reality of the situation from either by his infatuation with Kerrigan or an entrenched belief in the soldier's creed to "leave no-one behind". Either way, both are irrational and dangerous thoughts in a situation such as New Gettysburg presents. Raynor's getting angry at Mengsk is just as much about hating on Mengsk's actions as it is about him trying to avoid survivor's guilt - which he then understandably (and predictably, in a good way) feels at the start of The Hammer Falls after being powerless to do anything previously.

Quote:

---

so you weren't "treasoned", you were "betrayed" or rather "misled"

---

I know - this time I made it on purpose :D And don't worry, foreign speakers generally like to be corrected

Fun fact: in English you say "butcher the language", here we say "rape the language". Not very fun fact actually.

Quote:

---

I don't know about that. Raynor's behaviour could easily be explained by him being blinded to the reality of the situation from either by his infatuation with Kerrigan or an entrenched belief in the soldier's creed to "leave no-one behind".

---

This is true. It could even be a late reaction on Megnsk's decision on going on with the slaughter - or rather, the reaction to the genocide itself, once it was witnessed. But I feel that in SC2, they mean to make it clear that there was a way to rescue Kerrigan. I didn't read the SCI novels, but in what I read of Flashpoint Mengsk's actions are explained as nothing else but treachery, a desire to get rid of her. Is it different in Liberty's Crusade?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

It would be "morally neutral" if the tiranny was a necessary part of a greater, non-selfish plan to strenghten humanity against the alien menace and bring overall prosperity (lawful neutral?). Of course, the whole genocide part is downright evil, but can't you think of any political situation where tirany is the only way to maintain even the minimal amount of order or unity?

---

No. Not one that could realistically happen, in any case. We have the state of emergency and martial law, that are defined and limited by the law and thus are not tyranny (even though dictators often abuse it). As someone put it, people don't establish a dictatorship to safeguard their revolution, they make the revolution to establish their dictatorship. There is no such thing as a selfless tyrant.

Quote:

---

Maybe, Koprulu is such a place where so much unity could never be attained by peaceful and democratic ways.

Ruthlessness and violence have consolidated many empires and countries. It was horrible then, but now most of these countries are greatful to be one big power rather than a handful of tiny principalities. I'm glad I'm part of Brazil instead of a tiny republic north of Uruguay, and Brazilians north-easterners are probably glad they're part of one of the world's biggest economies instead of another Guiana.

---

What about being a part of the kingdom of Portugal? You wouldn't be limited to a single territory somewhere in South America, you would be part of an intercontinental country that covers portions of Europe and Africa. I've never been to Brazil in my life, but I'm confident it doesn't sound nearly as attractive when put that way.

If someone tried to overthrow the Republic on the ground that we will all be happy to be part of a greater power in a thousand years, I would switch to the side of whoever opposes that guy. Fantasies about greater good and the necessary sacrifice of millions don't work - it's been tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

I don't know about that. Raynor's behaviour could easily be explained by him being blinded to the reality of the situation from either by his infatuation with Kerrigan or an entrenched belief in the soldier's creed to "leave no-one behind". Either way, both are irrational and dangerous thoughts in a situation such as New Gettysburg presents. Raynor's getting angry at Mengsk is just as much about hating on Mengsk's actions as it is about him trying to avoid survivor's guilt - which he then understandably (and predictably, in a good way) feels at the start of The Hammer Falls after being powerless to do anything previously.

---

Certainly, the most "interesting" way to have posed the question/issue would have been to present both parties as being right; showing the differences in their respective responsibilities, views and stations in life.

For Raynor, it is certainly an admirable trait of his to willingly risk his own life in order to rescue Kerrigan just as it is correct for Mengsk to have decided otherwise if the risks outweighed the potential benefit; a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and all that. Who is Kerrigan that gives Mengsk the right to command others to risk their lives to try and save hers?

EDIT: wow, a wall of text. Sorry. I didn't have much to do at work today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenil

No. Not one that could realistically happen, in any case. We have the state of emergency and martial law, that are defined and limited by the law

---

Define "we". I don't know where you're from; probably US, UK or Oceania. Those - and also Brazil - are all historically stable places, if compared to Subsaharian Africa, for example. But in Rome, it was either the ruthlessness of the central government, or the ruthlessness of the various local elites AND the ruthlessness of "barbarian" invaders.

My country had a coup in the 60's, and torture and censorship across the 70's, done by military men who claimed they were protecting the country from a 'communist' dictadorship. And frankly, we were actually heading to socialist politics before the coup - in the context of the Cold War, even a center-left government in Brazil would be contantly threatened by CIA founded right wing terrorists (just like Cuba, Angola and the KBG founded our own freedom fighters/terrorists, btw). And that would lead either to restriction on civil liberties, or something else much worse than that.

Cuba has outstanding education, health and habitation compared to other Caribean and even overall Latin American countries. Without the embargo, we know for sure it wouldn't have half of its economic troubles. Guess how they cleared the political way to make all those reforms possible?

From my personal religious perspective I don't accept "pragmatisms" of any kind if they involve killing and oppressing. But I can't deny that many tyrants believed they were doing the best; some of them even despised the blodsheding, but deemed it as necessary; and many times, a tyranny was the best possible option in the context.

TL;DR, I don't like tyrannies, but I understand a tyrant can be more than just a megalomaniacal and vain person.

Quote:

---

There is no such thing as a selfless tyrant.

---

True; also there is no such thing as selfless political leader. I said that as someone who's not a cynic. I admire a lot of political leaders. Everyone, including me and you, has their own interests.

I know a little of politics from the inside. It's hard to be a good politician and at the same time, a strongly ethical person. It's like being a good boxer and a good ballet dancer at the same time. Possible, but a very, very hard balance. A good politician - and I'm talking about those who never cheat - knows how to hide his emotions, act based on reason, compromise on behalf of long-term benefits. But honest people are generally naive, sincere, get sick near of corrupt people, have little ability to compromise... Being a good politician and a good person is almost a paradox. What IMHO a democracy can have is a mix of good politicians that are average people and good people who are average politicians. That's the optimal state. My country never got anything like that, and still, we're managing to improve, to exterminate starvation, etc.

Quote:

---

What about being a part of the kingdom of Portugal? ...
If someone tried to overthrow the Republic on the ground that we will all be happy to be part of a greater power in a thousand years, I would switch to the side of whoever opposes that guy.

---

Good point. But then again, America is a pretty stable continent. I think the greatest non-civil war we ever had was the US-Mexico war, wasn't it?

If the US were two countries and the Moscowites never conquered Asia and created Russia, Hitler would probably have won WW2. Just imagine how much it sucks to be a tiny country in Africa when your neighbors are under heavy tribal wars. Its safer to be part of something big, isn't it?

Now add aliens :)

Quote:

---

Fantasies about greater good and the necessary sacrifice of millions don't work - it's been tried.

---

Agreed. But extremely ethical politics never did anything for human welfare. The problem is, we accept some brutal behaviors, but we don't accept others. Americans supported the invasion of Iraq because human slaughter and rape were seem as less unethical than women rights restrictions and corruption. Personally, I rather have my wife unable to vote than raped or bombed.

I rather live under a dictadorship than face a war. I say that as someone who was born during a dictadorship. Going back to Starcraft, Mengsk could possibly be the kind of leader who mantains peace with an iron hand; maybe not even the best for Koprulu, but a choice that many unethical, but not completely corrupted, people have taken; instead, he chose to be downright villanious and bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

Define "we". I don't know where you're from; probably US, UK or Oceania.

---

France.

Quote:

---

My country had a coup in the 60's, and torture and censorship across the 70's, done by military men who claimed they were protecting the country from a 'communist' dictadorship. And frankly, we were actually heading to socialist politics before the coup - in the context of the Cold War, even a center-left government in Brazil would be contantly threatened by CIA founded right wing terrorists (just like Cuba, Angola and the KBG founded our own freedom fighters/terrorists, btw). And that would lead either to restriction on civil liberties, or something else much worse than that.

---

Yes. As a matter of fact, I tend to believe that supporting some dictatorships against others can be the best decision, as long they are not more oppressive than your enemy. However, this is only true as long as that particular peril stands and no better option is available. After the USSR fell, there was no reason for the Western countries to support the dictatorships any more, and they didn't. By that logic, it made sense to support mid-east dictators if the choice was between hostile islamic dictatorships and friendly tyrants, but you can't pretend nothing happened when the people start to turn against their leaders in the name of democracy, even though you can't possibly know how everything will turn out.
This, at least in my view, is what ultimately makes a difference. You often have to choose the lesser evil, but should always remember it as such and take that into account when taking a decision.

Quote:

---

I rather live under a dictadorship than face a war.

---

I wouldn't, although I was born in a democracy that lives in peace, and so did not experience either situation. My grand parents lost friends to American bombs during World War 2, however, and to them that is completely irrelevant. They mourned them and wish they hadn't die, but they didn't stop supporting the bombardments for a second, because it was simply on an other level.

Quote:

---

From my personal religious perspective I don't accept "pragmatisms" of any kind if they involve killing and oppressing. But I can't deny that many tyrants believed they were doing the best; some of them even despised the blodsheding, but deemed it as necessary; and many times, a tyranny was the best possible option in the context.

---

Well, I suppose I have to slightly rephrase what I've written in the previous message: I don't see a global tyranny as being the best choice, ever. While a dictatorship could be a "lesser evil" in a given context, the situation will evolve after a time, and a tyrant is extremely unlikely to do his best to solve the issue and step down peaceably once the circumstances are less extreme. There may be a few examples in history, but the opposite is far more common. So, there needs to be something to remove the tyrant from power should he get too far, or at least to let the people know that something else could exist. In the case of the Koprulu Sector, the Dominion is the greatest military power among the Terran and cannot be destroyed by an outside human force (well, there is always the UED, but I'm assuming they wouldn't be significantly better). A tyranny that practically reigns supreme over the world is, to me, far more threatening than your average dictatorship. This, I suppose, is why I can't possibly support the Dominion even though I agree that dictatorships can sometimes be the "least bad" possible option.

Quote:

---

True; also there is no such thing as selfless political leader. I said that as someone who's not a cynic. I admire a lot of political leaders. Everyone, including me and you, has their own interests.

I know a little of politics from the inside. It's hard to be a good politician and at the same time, a strongly ethical person. It's like being a good boxer and a good ballet dancer at the same time. Possible, but a very, very hard balance. A good politician - and I'm talking about those who never cheat - knows how to hide his emotions, act based on reason, compromise on behalf of long-term benefits. But honest people are generally naive, sincere, get sick near of corrupt people, have little ability to compromise... Being a good politician and a good person is almost a paradox. What IMHO a democracy can have is a mix of good politicians that are average people and good people who are average politicians. That's the optimal state.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

But I feel that in SC2, they mean to make it clear that there was a way to rescue Kerrigan.

---

There was? Kerrigan seemed like she was pretty much on her own and then seen to be swamped in less than a minute whilst Mengsk (and presumably Raynor) were in orbit around Tarsonis and out of reach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TcheQuevara

I didn't read the SCI novels, but in what I read of Flashpoint Mengsk's actions are explained as nothing else but treachery, a desire to get rid of her. Is it different in Liberty's Crusade?

---

I agree that Mengsk's acts are treacherous, just not that they was singularly motivated by a desire to kill Kerrigan. I haven't read any of the novels but it seems to be consistent theme of the novels in stifling the creativity and open-ended nature of the game's story beats by outright stating things to be either in black or white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Certainly, the most "interesting" way to have posed the question/issue would have been to present both parties as being right; showing the differences in their respective responsibilities, views and stations in life.

For Raynor, it is certainly an admirable trait of his to willingly risk his own life in order to rescue Kerrigan just as it is correct for Mengsk to have decided otherwise if the risks outweighed the potential benefit; a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and all that. Who is Kerrigan that gives Mengsk the right to command others to risk their lives to try and save hers?

---

I think Rebel Yell does show the differences you mentioned above between Raynor and Mengsk quite well in the form of subtext. However, it's tricky to convey both parties as being equally right since for Mengsk to be considered "right" it has a to lean towards more to the amoral/detached side of things (which most people find difficulty to associate with at the best of times) whilst with Raynor to be considered "right", it is much more easier to side with him because his justification has a more morally (and crowd-pleasing) weighted lean to it.

In contrast to that example you gave, instead of showing both parties being right, it might've been just as interesting to explore the "low road" for each case such that we should compare Mengsk's deplorable actions and decisions as being potentially the right thing to do (the "good" of the "bad", if you will) with Raynor's potentially admirable or selfless traits as being potentially in the wrong (the "bad" of the "good").

I was always under the impression that Raynor realized Mengsk wanted Kerrigan dead by the mere fact that he sent her down there without reinforcements. The result was predictable, and Raynor was just as mad at himself as he was with Mengsk. There was probably no way to rescue her, but Mengsk meant for things to turn out that way. He sacrificed one of the murderers of his family as well as disposed of a lieutenant whose faith had become compromised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions of Khas

I was always under the impression that Raynor realized Mengsk wanted Kerrigan dead by the mere fact that he sent her down there without reinforcements. The result was predictable, and Raynor was just as mad at himself as he was with Mengsk. There was probably no way to rescue her, but Mengsk meant for things to turn out that way. He sacrificed one of the murderers of his family as well as disposed of a lieutenant whose faith had become compromised.

---

Interestingly enough - and as has been stated previously - while she did question Mengsk's actions, she still carried out his orders anyway; the latter of which was what ultimately (would have) killed her. Which, to me, doesn't send the message that questioning Mengsk will get you killed. Rather, it sends the message that following Mengsk's orders will get you killed. Which is the total opposite of Blizzard's stated objective for Mengsk's actions.

Quote:

---

Rather, it sends the message that following Mengsk's orders will get you killed. Which is the total opposite of Blizzard's stated objective for Mengsk's actions.

---

That wasn't the case until Mengsk's attack on Tarsonis. For all intents and purposes he was a man of the people. He risked his soldiers, sure -- every military leader does -- but he didn't sacrifice them until Tarsonis. On the precipice of total domination, Mengsk felt it was time to eliminate a potential threat and enact a plan of revenge years in the making. He became what he fought so hard to destroy.

I'm not saying Mengsk wasn't a ruthless bastard until Tarsonis, that's just when he let his mask slip and stopped being so careful.


BUT -- my previous post was just my impression of events upon my initial playthrough of the campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions of Khas

That wasn't the case until Mengsk's attack on Tarsonis. For all intents and purposes he was a man of the people. He risked his soldiers, sure -- every military leader does -- but he didn't sacrifice them until Tarsonis. On the precipice of total domination, Mengsk felt it was time to eliminate a potential threat and enact a plan of revenge years in the making. He became what he fought so hard to destroy.

I'm not saying Mengsk wasn't a ruthless bastard until Tarsonis, that's just when he let his mask slip and stopped being so careful.


BUT -- my previous post was just my impression of events upon my initial playthrough of the campaign.

---

That's my point - that his sacrificing his troops on Tarsonis sent the complete opposite message to what Blizzard intended. Namely, that instead of conveying that questioning Mengsk would get you killed, it conveyed that following his orders despite reservations is what will get you killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

That's my point - that his sacrificing his troops on Tarsonis sent the complete opposite message to what Blizzard intended. Namely, that instead of conveying that questioning Mengsk would get you killed, it conveyed that following his orders despite reservations is what will get you killed.

---

Computer problem is back again. In Ghost Academy, units that followed Mengsk's orders to leave Tarsonis's system were branded "wimps".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr. peasant

Interestingly enough - and as has been stated previously - while she did question Mengsk's actions, she still carried out his orders anyway; the latter of which was what ultimately (would have) killed her. Which, to me, doesn't send the message that questioning Mengsk will get you killed. Rather, it sends the message that following Mengsk's orders will get you killed. Which is the total opposite of Blizzard's stated objective for Mengsk's actions.

---

True, although in that case they were soldiers. If they are sent to an exremely dangerous but critical mission, they go anyway. I agree that it doesn't give the feeling that following orders will get you killed; in that context, the meaning is more that Mengsk won't rescue his men if they are cornered by an overwhelming force. That's essentially what you said, only more limited in scope than "following orders will get you killed".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Visions of Khas

That wasn't the case until Mengsk's attack on Tarsonis. For all intents and purposes he was a man of the people. He risked his soldiers, sure -- every military leader does -- but he didn't sacrifice them until Tarsonis. On the precipice of total domination, Mengsk felt it was time to eliminate a potential threat and enact a plan of revenge years in the making. He became what he fought so hard to destroy.

---

Something's not right here. How can Mengsk actually be truly a "man of the people" first and then become what "he fought so hard to destroy" the instant he "sacrificed" Kerrigan if he already harbored selfish tendencies, as you suggest by his planning to kill Kerrigan and becoming a tyrant, from the start? The answer has to be "he can't" or "never was" which then renders Mengsk into the black and white territory of villainy. This goes back to what I said previously about post Sc1 stuff squashing the possibility that Mengsk was ever altruistic at all, how it colours how you perceive his actions throughout Rebel Yell retrospectively and why it ultimately makes him into the boring and (stereo)typical villain he is presented as now.

Sacrificing ones soldiers is not really different than plainly (if one could ever call it that) risking ones soldiers in a battle when you consider that the circumstances are different for both. Compared to a regular military engagement, New Gettysburg/Tarsonis was the ultimate goal about to be imminently realised and what it needed to be fulfilled was nothing short of a sacrifice. In SC1, there is insufficient evidence to say for sure that Mengsk purposefully created/patiently waited for a suicide situation expressly so that he could kill Kerrigan (if he indeed really wanted to kill her at all...). To say that Mengsk killed Kerrigan for questioning his orders implies (amongst other things, such as him wanting to kill her regardless) that Kerrigan was somewhat forced into that suicidal situation and unaccountable for her own death. This is not what the game shows us. Kerrigan's naivete, blind trust and inability to really think on her own got her killed (as peasant says "following orders will get you killed") just as much as it was Mengsk presenting her with a suicidal situation irrespective of whether or not he intended to kill her at all. See now just how gray SC1 was?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenil

True, although in that case they were soldiers. If they are sent to an exremely dangerous but critical mission, they go anyway. I agree that it doesn't give the feeling that following orders will get you killed; in that context, the meaning is more that Mengsk won't rescue his men if they are cornered by an overwhelming force. That's essentially what you said, only more limited in scope than "following orders will get you killed".

---

My comment about "following orders will get you killed" was more in the context of Blizzard's explanation of Mengsk's rationale - and how it didn't quite fit. In their response, they said that Mengsk wanted to make an example of her and send a message to the rest of the SoK that "the cause was now an established idea and their belief was no longer required—only their obedience".

Yet, if anyone so much as thought about it, it's plain to see that Kerrigan's actual obedience was the more direct cause of her 'death'. To elaborate, she no longer believed wholly and unquestioningly in Mengsk but was nonetheless still obedient; and as a result, she 'died'. As such, wouldn't the conclusion that comes to mind instead to not be obedient?

Now, if Mengsk had decided to shoot her himself immediately the moment she questioned his decisions, instead of dispatching her on a suicide mission, THEN the message would have come across as 'obey me or suffer the consequences'.