How did they screw up the single player that bad?

[Laurentian]

Hmmm, I don't think the debate about Mengsk should be about good or evil as it really is pretty straightforward (he is evil).

Weren't you earlier disputing whether Mengsk was truly evil?

I think it'd be much more complex to decide whether SC1's Mengsk was more of an egoist or utilitarian (not in BW or SC2 as it becomes quite evident he's an egoist). They both go hand-in-hand/ are related but either position alone can be more readily defensible (using SC1 only as a reference point that is) than arguing strictly good or evil.

"I will rule this sector or see it burned to ashes around me."

[Laurentian]

Which he started before aliens started showing up.

Which he continued during the alien invasion despite the fact that you said that a civil war during an alien invasion could lead to Terran extinction.

The only time he manipulated the Zerg, he ended the war.

Antiga Prime? Also he was manipulating the zerg into killing billions of Terrans in order to...save lives during a zerg invasion. Makes sense!

And before you mention 'why not form an alliance?', there's no evidence that such an option was on the table. We never meet any Confederate representatives (aside from Duke who joined Mengsk) and we never see signs that the Confederates actively fought the Zerg.

What evidence do you have that it was not on the table?

Sacrifice millions to save billions. Better to lose some than to lose all.

He already sacrificed billions. Also sacrificing innocent people in the name of the greater good is pretty evil and evil people have done this throughout history.
Also said sacrifice created the Queen of Blades and turned Raynor into a rebel so I imagine he would have saved more lives by having not slaughtered Tarsonians.

If you're going to count one longitudinally, you have to count both longitudinally.

Hmm, by your own logic by killing 2 billion people Mengsk has killed billions of more people who would have been born otherwise. Since Tarsonis was the Capitol world he wiped out a large part of Terran society. Doesn't seem you are counting both longitudinally.

[Romla]

So everyone agree Tassadar and Raynor also did evil things - Tassadar wiped out whole planets with innocent people, Raynor is constantly helping Kerrigan to do the same (especially in BW where even protoss were helping Kerrigan and also in WoL - paragraph V.b here). But all these characters (except Kerrigan) are considered as good. So was for example UED considered as good or bad? Was UED more evil than zergs? I think that cannot be answered unambiguously, because even the knight in shining armor Raynor thought it will be better to destroy UED instead of zergs, but he wasn't sure.

Almost everyone here is considering what is good or evil only from theirs perspective. But that can be wrong. For example mankind utterly destroyed many species on our planet, are we evil because of that? And then will come the zergs and they will destroy mankind, are they more evil than we are? I think it is pretty selfish to call evil everyone who wants to destroy us. Maybe we are the evil ones in the universe, because our actions in the future will wipe out all life, so the zergs are good or at least better than we are, because they'll kill us before we can destroy everything - theoretically speaking, not in the bounds of SC2 story, where it seems to be the opposite to my sorrow. :-)

All I am trying to say is that everything is relative, nothing is just black and white, only if you want it to be so. I for example enjoyed the most the second, zerg campaign in vanilla Starcraft, because I perceived zergs as another race very different from ourselves which is not bound by our moral rules and don't need to operate according to them. They were much more interesting to me than protoss because protoss are very similar to us. Unfortunately lately Overmind was killed and also all Cerebrates were killed and the glorious and special zerg race with hive-mind was changed into a bunch of stupid creatures under the rule of a pissed-off girl - that started in BW, but was completed and retconned in WoL, I doubt HotS can yet restore the full glory and majesty of a formerly powerful zerg race.

That is only my little thinking about things, I am trying to be objective and don't prefer any race in Starcraft, just because writers want them to be this or that. And it can be done, if you are not thinking like a terran - everything what is bad for mankind must be evil. That is not true, generally.

EDIT: If you are thinking about that the most crippled race in Starcraft are zergs, because they were practically stripped off of their original identity. What was the greatest upon their race (Overmind and Cerebrates), was destroyed by protoss and humans (Raynor and especially Kerrigan). So the zergs are not only aggressors, they are also victims. And terrans are also aggressors, Confederacy, Dominion, UED, we all know the drill...

[Turalyon]

Weren't you earlier disputing whether Mengsk was truly evil?

Did I really do that or did you just assume my stance when you read my post?

When I talked about the possibility of Mengsk doing "good", I meant it in a strict utilitarian sense not a moral one. Indeed, utilitarianism is often used as the scapegoat for tyrants (the whole 'ends justifying means' thing) but objectively speaking, being utilitarian can be both morally good and evil at the same time even though it is made obvious at the end of Rebel Yell that we are to think of Mengsk as the latter version if he is one at all.

"I will rule this sector or see it burned to ashes around me."

I take it that you feel Mengsk was always and only the egotist then?

There is some leeway to explain SC1 Mengsk's actions in a more utilitarian light than the 'traditional' egotistic (and perhaps cynical?) perspective most people tend to think of him in. The rescue of Raynor and finding of the Psi Emitter on Mar Sara, the first use of the Psi Emitter on Antiga and the second use of it on Tarsonis can be explained from either perspective.

I'm not defending Mengsk in anyway but if Mengsk was a staunch utilitarian, it's hard not to take it personally when someone is openly trying to destablise a situation further than what it already is through their sudden rebellion. The hard work really begins after the removal of the ineffectual and arguably morally worse Confederates (see below) when you have to re-stabilise, improve and provide security for the the entire Terran lot by attempting to unify them. It's an enormous responsibility that he put on himself (for selfish reasons or not) and yet someone just shirks it after the things they've done because they only now suddenly think it's too hard or bad and then further have the audacity to try an oppose something that is the only hope of securing their peoples safety in the near future (if they are ever even able to survive it at all). Would not it be better if Raynor had stayed put and help rebuild a better Terran society (in comparison to the Confederates and NOT an idealised one that is)?

In comparison to the Confederates, Mengsk's actions whilst heinous, were at least directed at the Confederates as his primary target. The Confederates have done more morally reprehensible things in comparison to Mengsk. Were they not the first to develop the Psi Emitters and then possibly (it is conjecture since Mengsk actually says this so he could be lying, unless the data disks actually revealed plans for their use - it is unknown) used that technology on totally innocent worlds such as Chau Sara and Mar Sara just to set an example of them or to flaunt their power just like they did with the nuclear annihilation Korhal? Not to mention the long history of their planet's (Tarsonis) bullying of the other initial colonies on Moria and Umoja which led to a war in itself.

Either way, the point is is that the situation goes beyond good and evil. Mengsk is evil. There is no question about that. However, Mengsk's actions throughout Rebel Yell can be seen as being selfish, utilitarian or both with varying degrees in between. At the end of SC1, Mengsk could've gone the other way in how he formed and controlled his Dominion. It's just that his "reveal" was at the end of the story and sticks out the most, hence he must therefore and forever be solely a selfish prick it seems.

[Laurentian]

Did I really do that or did you just assume my stance when you read my post?

See you used to put evil in quotes and questioned whether or not evil truly exists but now you are using evil without quotes and you are saying that evil apparently does in fact truly exist.

Indeed, utilitarianism is often used as the scapegoat for tyrants (the whole 'ends justifying means' thing)

Erm always used as a scapegoat. The tyrant always argues that they are (supposedly) Getting Things Done and a the only thing holding society together so opposing them is wrong.

I take it that you feel Mengsk was always and only the egotist then?

I'm pretty sure that Mengsk pretty much always intended to create a dictatorship with him in charge. Since the Right Person (i.e. himself) was in charge he could do whatever he wanted. Just like you know all tyrants.

I'm not defending Mengsk in anyway but if Mengsk was a staunch utilitarian, it's hard not to take it personally when someone is openly trying to destablise a situation further than what it already is through their sudden rebellion.

Except that Mengsk didn't say that and he speaks of "a new empire being sown" and that "I have sacrificed too much." He also told Raynor "don't even think to cross me." He said nothing of Raynor's actions being damaging to Terrans as a whole but only to himself. The fact that he says to Raynor personally and not as part of a public speech suggests that this is how he really feels.

The hard work really begins after the removal of the ineffectual and arguably morally worse Confederates (see below) when you have to re-stabilise, improve and provide security for the the entire Terran lot by attempting to unify them. It's an enormous responsibility that he put on himself (for selfish reasons or not) and yet someone just shirks it after the things they've done because they only now suddenly think it's too hard or bad and then further have the audacity to try an oppose something that is the only hope of securing their peoples safety in the near future (if they are ever even able to survive it at all).

Interesting bait and switch you are performing. Mengsk's revolution was supposed to be about overthrowing an oppressive government and providing liberty to Terrans. Once that is done the situation is now about providing stability and security, conveniently after the old government was overthrown, so that pesky liberty thing has to be thrown down the wayside. Also your whole line of reasoning pretty much justifies quashing all dissent. Sounds like something an oppressive tyrant would say. Reminds me of that phrase "those who give up essential liberty for security will get neither."

Would not it be better if Raynor had stayed put and help rebuild a better Terran society (in comparison to the Confederates and NOT an idealised one that is)?

Since Arcturus shows he is perfectly willing to commit genocide and trying to kill Kerrigan for questioning it I don't see how Raynor could stay put since any of his attempts to build a better Terran society that conflict with Mengsk's (which include such lovely things as genocide) would get him killed. Also Arcturus shows that he is not all that different than the Confederates so his "better society" is simply a dictatorship with Arcturus in charge. Also it is pretty easy to justify atrocities in the name of building a better society, like you know Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.

The Confederates have done more morally reprehensible things in comparison to Mengsk.

Irrelevant. The question is whether or not Mengsk is evil, not whether Confederacy is worse. Tu quoque is something that tyrants use to justify their actions after all.

[Turalyon]

See you used to put evil in quotes and questioned whether or not evil truly exists but now you are using evil without quotes and you are saying that evil apparently does in fact truly exist.

You'll have to enlighten me and show exactly where I said what you think I said. I don't ever remembering saying/ questioning that "evil does not exist" or anything remotely like that in this discussion.

Erm always used as a scapegoat. The tyrant always argues that they are (supposedly) Getting Things Done and a the only thing holding society together so opposing them is wrong.

Oops. I actually did mean always. The rest still stands.

Except that Mengsk didn't say that and he speaks of "a new empire being sown" and that "I have sacrificed too much." He also told Raynor "don't even think to cross me." He said nothing of Raynor's actions being damaging to Terrans as a whole but only to himself. The fact that he says to Raynor personally and not as part of a public speech suggests that this is how he really feels.

As I said, it's easier to paint all of Mengsk's actions as being wholly selfish and egotistical since all those revealing quotes came at the end and are thus most fresh and vivid.

Even then, I'm not denying your argument that Mengsk in reality is a selfish prick as, afterall, I was exploring the perspective of Mengsk as if he was really a pure utilitarian.

Mengsk's revolution was supposed to be about overthrowing an oppressive government and providing liberty to Terrans.

Not sure about the liberty part. Foremost, Mengsk was out to remove an ineffectual government that was established as misusing its power and creating division in Terran unity.

Also your whole line of reasoning pretty much justifies quashing all dissent. Sounds like something an oppressive tyrant would say. Reminds me of that phrase "those who give up essential liberty for security will get neither."

I never said being utilitarian is not evil. In the end, squashing dissent to one thing or another is the aim of all governmental procedures and laws. It all depends on the degree and willingness in enforcing it.

Dissent/dis-unification is a bad thing to have in situation where survival of the species is on the line. From a pragmatic stance, Mengsk's oppressive regime focusing on unity has a better chance of surviving longer than the Confederates oppressive and divisive government. Sure, it would be nice to have a more democratic government but how long will that take to implement and how much more effective will that be in the long run when you're not even sure you'll survive long enough to see it's supposedly better outcomes?

Since Arcturus shows he is perfectly willing to commit genocide and trying to kill Kerrigan for questioning it I don't see how Raynor could stay put since any of his attempts to build a better Terran society that conflict with Mengsk's (which include such lovely things as genocide) would get him killed. Also Arcturus shows that he is not all that different than the Confederates so his "better society" is simply a dictatorship with Arcturus in charge. Also it is pretty easy to justify atrocities in the name of building a better society, like you know Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot.

The original question was posed as continuation of the position of Mengsk from a purely pragmatic, utilitarian perspective and not really meant to be answered. I knew you'd answer it the way you did but that was not what I was trying to get at.

Irrelevant. The question is whether or not Mengsk is evil, not whether Confederacy is worse. Tu quoque is something that tyrants use to justify their actions after all.

Sure it makes no difference when you're talking good and evil, but the difference is important when deciding whether Mengsk's actions can be construed as being wholly egotistic, pragmatic or utilitarian.

[Laurentian]

As I said, it's easier to paint all of Mengsk's actions as being wholly selfish and egotistical since all those revealing quotes came at the end and are thus most fresh and vivid.

I'd say it is easy to paint his actions as being selfish and egotistical because they are. It not like we were supposed to think to otherwise even in SC1 and evidence to the contrary is slim.

Even then, I'm not denying your argument that Mengsk in reality is a selfish prick as, afterall, I was exploring the perspective of Mengsk as if he was really a pure utilitarian.

Huh, if my argument is correct in any way than how is Mengsk a pure utilitarian? Anyway this whole line of reasoning strikes me as about as interesting as arguing that Palpatine or Sauron have been given a bad rap. Ormby argument that the Dark Voice is simply freeing everyone from war and suffering by killing them.

Not sure about the liberty part. Foremost, Mengsk was out to remove an ineffectual government that was established as misusing its power and creating division in Terran unity.

Well Mengsk's propaganda says stuff about fighting for freedom and I didn't see Mengsk talking about the need to eliminate division in Terran society (I suppose he wants everyone to unite against the Confederacy but that is not the same as argueing that the Confederacy should be overthrown because it isn't uniting people) when he is you know creating division in Terran society by trying to overthrow the Confederacy. Fighting against a government that you call "oppressive" implies supporting freedom since oppressive governments are supposed to provide order and security instead of liberty. I suppose he might truly have cared littled for freedom in his revolution but that means he is just a lying bastard (Or defines "freedom" as "Freedom for Arcturus"), like a lot of so called freedom fighters. Mengsk by the way is also ineffectual and is misusing his power and creating division in terran unity.

Dissent/dis-unification is a bad thing to have in situation where survival of the species is on the line.

Convenient that dissent is bad when it is dissent against Mengsk. As for survival of the species supposedly being on the line (seems it is only survival of the species is on the line because emngsk says so and only when it benefits him) you know unleashing aliens to kill about 10 percent of the population (Possibly?) is a pretty odd way to save humanity from aforesaid aliens.

Also Arcturus is Hitler?

Mengsk's oppressive regime focusing on unity has a better chance of surviving longer than the Confederates oppressive and divisive government.

Weren't the Confederates focused on unity as well? You know they developed the psi-emitters and nuked Korhal to crush opposition along with press censorship, and all the rest. They were being pragmatic as well. Also Mengsk doesn't seem to have developed a stable society since the constant revolts are still ongoing. And it seems his rule is pretty divisive as well. Oh and he completely fails to do much about the zerg (Raynor does a lot, he does little) and completely failed to stop the UED from overthrowing him after only after a few months. So much for lasting longer than the Confederacy which had lasted for over 175 years! And he was only restored by Kerrigan, Raynor and Fenix. He is also completely unable to stop Raynor from attacking his capital city. Seems he is training hybrids. I suppose this is a pragmatic way to crush dissent and unite the Terrans to save them from the hybrid threat.

Personally I think if they wanted to write Mengsk as a utilitarian or pragmatist they would have written him that way. They didn't since we have seen twice the spectacle of Arcturus Mengsk completely unable to justify his genocide of Tarsonis when directly confronted about it.

[Gradius]

The bottom line is that the game portrayed Mengsk as an evil prick. To think of him as a "utilitarian" only requires a bit of theorycrafting, especially since he is directly responsible for the death of a major world.

[mr. peasant]

The bottom line is that the game portrayed Mengsk as an evil prick. To think of him as a "utilitarian" only requires a bit of theorycrafting, especially since he is directly responsible for the death of a major world.

Precisely; hence, the difference between presentation (i.e. Blizzard's official interpretation - clear 'good' and 'evil' camps) and an objective assessment of what went down; which is less clear cut (i.e. there is room to debate and question). In other words, truth is in how you present the facts.

[Turalyon]

It not like we were supposed to think to otherwise even in SC1 and evidence to the contrary is slim.

See peasant's reply.

Huh, if my argument is correct in any way than how is Mengsk a pure utilitarian? Anyway this whole line of reasoning strikes me as about as interesting as arguing that Palpatine or Sauron have been given a bad rap.

A pure utilitarian does what is necessary for the greater majority. Sometimes doing what is good for the majority is not always morally good - see Ozymandias of Watchmen for an example. His reasons for doing what he did are wholly evil but utilitarian in nature.

I would actually find it interesting for someone to try and explain Palpatine or Sauron in a similar light given that their whole conception has always been from a "selfish evil" perspective with no discernibly objective utilitarian methods.

Well Mengsk's propaganda says stuff about fighting for freedom and I didn't see Mengsk talking about the need to eliminate division in Terran society (I suppose he wants everyone to unite against the Confederacy but that is not the same as argueing that the Confederacy should be overthrown because it isn't uniting people) when he is you know creating division in Terran society by trying to overthrow the Confederacy.

The Confeds have a history of already creating disunity, being self-serving through their numerous atrocious acts (starting a war in the early days of the first 3 colonies, the annihilation of Korhal and finally inviting the Zerg to attack their own colonies just to see what happens and/or as a means to control them more thereby potentially inviting the destruction of their entire race in the whole process). Mengsk does not need propaganda for this.

Mengsk by the way is also ineffectual and is misusing his power and creating division in terran unity.

This is only known in hindsight. The end of Rebel Yell show that he's power-hungry but this does not necessarily mean he's going to be stupid about his use of power. It's only until BW that it is hinted that maybe he is actually stupid and in WoL it is somewhat cemented as fact that gives you the above claim.

Convenient that dissent is bad when it is dissent against Mengsk. As for survival of the species supposedly being on the line (seems it is only survival of the species is on the line because emngsk says so and only when it benefits him) you know unleashing aliens to kill about 10 percent of the population (Possibly?) is a pretty odd way to save humanity from aforesaid aliens.

The harsh truth is that the Confederacy started it already and it is intimated that the Confeds are either unprepared, ignorant (the Terran fleet was caught flat-footed after Chau Sara's destruction) or don't care about the situation. The Confeds could've used the invasion to foster loyalty and unity with the Terrans but Duke gives the impression that the Confeds wanted this to happen but to happen secretly as well. With this mindset, it goes without saying that it would only be a matter of time before either the Zerg or the Protoss would finish Humanity off completely.

Once again I refer to Ozymandias's example in Watchmen. If you're not familiar with that try on this hypothetical:

An armed gunman holds 10 people hostage, one of which is you. The gunman offers the hostages a deal. If one of you kills one other hostage, he will let the remainder go. If you refuse or attempt to attack/resist him, he will kill you all. You have 30 seconds to decide, after which he will proceed to kill everyone. What do you do? Sure, there's no guarantee the gunman will keep his word but what choice do you have? Do you try to make use of the little power that has been granted to you to serve the greater good (saving as many people you can) or stick to your morals and suffer the possible consequences?

This predicament is similar to the situation which Mengsk is facing in SC1.

Weren't the Confederates focused on unity as well? You know they developed the psi-emitters and nuked Korhal to crush opposition along with press censorship, and all the rest. They were being pragmatic as well.

There was no outside alien threat to unite against then. All these displays of power are just (and quite obvious to boot) to fuel the self-serving needs of the Confederacy. At the least, Mengsk has a more legitimate excuse than the Confeds.

Also Mengsk doesn't seem to have developed a stable society since the constant revolts are still ongoing. And it seems his rule is pretty divisive as well. Oh and he completely fails to do much about the zerg (Raynor does a lot, he does little) and completely failed to stop the UED from overthrowing him after only after a few months. So much for lasting longer than the Confederacy which had lasted for over 175 years! And he was only restored by Kerrigan, Raynor and Fenix. He is also completely unable to stop Raynor from attacking his capital city. Seems he is training hybrids. I suppose this is a pragmatic way to crush dissent and unite the Terrans to save them from the hybrid threat.

Keep in mind that I'm only specifically looking at SC1 in terms of Mengsk's actions as being utilitarian. As I said, BW or WoL show that he really is incompetent and totally self-absorbed but only in hindsight. When Rebel Yell ends it is not clear whether or not Mengsk will truly live up to his promises for strengthening the Terran cause, but all things in that campaign indicate that he has a fair chance of doing so. There is more hope for Terran survival by the end of Rebel Yell than there was in the beginning even though it's at the cost of having the possibility of a power-mad dictator going off the rails (which, in the end, proves true).

Personally I think if they wanted to write Mengsk as a utilitarian or pragmatist they would have written him that way. They didn't since we have seen twice the spectacle of Arcturus Mengsk completely unable to justify his genocide of Tarsonis when directly confronted about it.

You're right, given the information at hand with these later installments, we cannot think of him that way at all anymore. The pre-BW SC1 Mengsk was more interesting in that he could have been written as a more utilitarian leader (where the means can be morally wrong but are objectively justifiable to reach the ends) and made for a much more interesting enemy for Raynor to fight in WoL. It would have made a nice dichotomy in contrast to Raynor's methods being seemingly more just but being potentially harmful for the greater good of Terran security or at the least being petty.