How did they screw up the single player that bad?

[Laurentian]

You know what I don't understand? When did Raynor start a rebellion against Mengsk? He left him after he left Kerrigan to die, but he never actively fought him after that. If anything, the next time they met after that they were working together.

I mean he obviously didn't LIKE Mengsk or want to work with him at all, but I don't get when he became a big freedom fighter and started up a rebellion. In the original game and Brood War he just seemed to be more concerned with surviving and hiding out.

I think that the beginning of WOL is supposed to be Raynor starting the Rebellion. Kicking it into overdrive and all. I guess the idea is supposed to be that he spent the time after BW (and SC1 I guess?) hiding and surviving and conducting a low key rebellion against Mengsk and now he decides (for some reason) to start a serious rebellion.

[Turalyon]

I'll be honest I shouldn't have gone on about the Confederacy since it is not relevant to Mengsk being a utilitarian or not. And whether or not Mengsk's rule is better is a different argument. And whether Confederacy being utilitarian and how this might prove that utilitarianism isn't a particularily good idea are different arguments as well.

...Now I don't actually believe most of this but what of it?

Not a bad attempt, but I was hoping that you'd actually include some of the Confeds atrocities and try to spin them into a utilitarian light. For example, let's compare the personal/selfish gain to the gain obtained for the greater majority of Terrans for the annihilation of Korhal and Tasonis since they are the two worst atrocities committed by the Confeds and Mengsk respectively.

With the Confeds and the Korhal incident, the 'gain' appears to be much more personally/selfishly relevant to the Confeds only. The 'greater good' in this case is largely representative of the Confeds only because the real, objective greater majority (all Terrans and not just the Confeds and those aligned with them) suffer in one of two ways as consequence of Korhal's annihilation: they must restrict themselves and conform to only one (the Confederate) standard and leave themselves open to Confed authority (be it good, bad or indifference to times of crises) or try to resist further thereby creating more division within Terran ranks and risk facing another annihilation attempt like at Korhal. The Confed aligned colonies would suffer the most from the first consequence, whilst the unaligned Terran colonies from the likes of the KM Combine and the Umojan Protectorate could potentially suffer the second consequence. This is the typical set-up for tyrants worldwide, where their actions are more heavily weighted for selfish gain and where the 'greater good' they talk about really means themselves.

With Mengsk and the Tarsonis incident we have the same issues as the above, but there are important differences to consider. Even as Mengsk has selfish designs and ultimately all his actions are revealed to be wholly selfishly motivated, the destruction of Tarsonis does have a benefit for the greater number of remaining Terrans. First, it removes the selfish and domineering control of the Confeds that was hindering the Terran through the aforementioned consequences of their own actions (see above). Secondly and possibly as flow on from the first, it now potentially (given that the downcast Terrans are hardy lot and don't tend to roll-over when the odds are against them) allows the willing co-operation of all Terran agencies to to come together (whereas it was impossible before now due to the Confederates wanting things only their way throughout the past 100 years and more) and work against the newly discovered and very powerful common enemies (Zerg and Protoss) who are nonchalantly destroying their worlds and possibly their entire species for all they know. These two benefits are utilitarian in nature even in spite of Mengsk pulling the entire thing off for selfish reasons.

In comparing the major two atrocities, it is easier (still doesn't make it 'right' any sense of the word though) to see Mengsk's destruction of Tarsonis as being more truthfully utilitarian than the Confed's destruction of Korhal. To make things more brain-bending, revealing that Mengsk's destruction of Tarsonis was actually motivated by selfish reasons to the entire Terran populace would be detrimental for the greater good of the Terran race at the time since that will surely create division and outrage among the Terrans even more than before. This would possibly result in them to not only be leaderless as a whole but far more vulnerable to be picked off by the invading aliens and possibly ensuring the destruction of the entire Terran population in the sector.

Eh, I think we ought to end this. I'm not really too sure what we are arguing about anymore? Okay I agree that Mengsk can be interpreted as a utiliarian in SC1 or in BW or WOL for that matter (but I don't agree that he was ever utilitarian), It's possible his regime might be preferable to Confederacy (I don't really think so). If you want to interpret it that way it's fine (just like I can interpret the DV as some guy who is killing everyone for their own good). If you think that utilitarianism is good (either in fiction or in real life) well I disagree. If you think the story would have better if they had made Mengsk a more pragmatic or utilitarian tyrant type, Well I suppose you very well may be right!

Just to clear things up about my position on whether utilitarianism is good or not, I feel that utilitarianism, as with any other philosophy, only look their best and work as intended on paper/ in theory. Human nature is always the spanner in the works for such things in reality...

I wasn't looking to convince you that Mengsk was "this or that" (which I admittedly got myself bogged down into doing) but rather to show you that it's possible to have different and reasonable interpretations within the confines of Sc1 story and why it helped that story resonate more because of its unexpected and possibly unintended "varied applicability" (as Tolkien put it aptly). I would struggle mightily to describe WoL's story using that same term, however.

[Turalyon]

You know what I don't understand? When did Raynor start a rebellion against Mengsk? He left him after he left Kerrigan to die, but he never actively fought him after that. If anything, the next time they met after that they were working together.

I mean I guess eventually that could be his end-goal, I'd just have liked to see more of that transition from outlaw to rebel.

We have to chalk this up to the "4 years has passed and anything can happen in that time" reason. It's but one more gripe along with the other complaints about characters changing too markedly or not all and why almost nothing of import has happened in that time.

For a sequel and continuation of the story, lacking adequate transition and leaving it up to one's imagination is just plain lazy storytelling.

She just throws her massive super-army around.

What happened to the Kerrigan that was if not cunning at the very least COMPETENT?

To be fair, all Kerrigan did in BW was throw around her army too and bully people. However, I do agree with you on how ineffective she proves to be in WoL, given that she became "top dog" in BW and supposedly still is going into WoL. Don't you just love the incongruity?

I think that the beginning of WOL is supposed to be Raynor starting the Rebellion. Kicking it into overdrive and all. I guess the idea is supposed to be that he spent the time after BW (and SC1 I guess?) hiding and surviving and conducting a low key rebellion against Mengsk and now he decides (for some reason) to start a serious rebellion.

Hmmm, the manual, official backstory and some in-game tidbits reveal that Raynor's Raiders had been fighting a losing guerilla war against Mengsk over the past 4 years. This hints that any serious rebellion Raynor did start may well have already been squashed by the time we see him at WoL's start. This could explain why he only has access to Marines only at the start as his forces have been depleted and why he's depressed. I doubt that Raynor could've survived for the past 4 years using just marines (even though in-game they own pretty much anything) from the beginning - not to mention he had access to a lot of Terran hardware throughout BW which you'd assumed he would still have.

[Aldrius]

To be fair, all Kerrigan did in BW was throw around her army too and bully people.

Huh? She manipulated the Protoss into killing her enemies, she tricked the UED into killing it's vice-admiral and almost destroying one of the biggest threats in the sector to her rule. She convinced Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix to work for her and betrayed them, she got Zeratul to kill the Overmind for her, and when it was all over she wiped out the three strongest fleets in the sector.

Granted she had a lot of help from Duran with a lot of that, but it wasn't like Duran was holding her hand through all of that. She had some good ideas too. In WoL she just seems like kind of a raving idiot.

[Turalyon]

Huh? She manipulated the Protoss into killing her enemies, she tricked the UED into killing it's vice-admiral and almost destroying one of the biggest threats in the sector to her rule. She convinced Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix to work for her and betrayed them, she got Zeratul to kill the Overmind for her, and when it was all over she wiped out the three strongest fleets in the sector.

Granted she had a lot of help from Duran with a lot of that, but it wasn't like Duran was holding her hand through all of that. She had some good ideas too. In WoL she just seems like kind of a raving idiot.

Not to take anything away from Kerrigan's achievements in BW but consider the following:

Can we be sure Kerrigan is to be credited for Stukov's death when it its revealed Duran was not really Kerrigan's pawn to begin with?

Kerrigan didn't have to convince or manipulate the Protoss to kill the Cerebrates on Shakuras - they would've done that on their own soon enough since it is their last remaining homeworld (as far as we know ).

Kerrigan's successful "manipulation" of Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix can be attributed to the stupidity of the aforementioned parties (especially in Mengsks' case) in believing her convenient lies based on hearsay. Then again, the initial lie of being free of the Overmind and the possibility of therefore being good again does have merit as there was no precedent for this until now. That being said it could've gone either way since there was no real evidence that Kerrigan was good again apart from her saying it was so.

Zeratul believing Kerrigan's words a second time (freeing the matriarch after killing the new Overmind for her) after she betrayed him in their earlier dealing with Aldaris but from reason hoping she'll keep her word is odd. How much is this attributed to Kerrigan's cunning and how much is this attributed to Zeratul being stupid and falling for it? As they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

Either way, at least Kerrigan is proactive in BW whereas in WoL she is largely reactive and poorer for it as you said ("she's one step behind ALL the time").

[Aldrius]

Can we be sure Kerrigan is to be credited for Stukov's death when it its revealed Duran was not really Kerrigan's pawn to begin with?

She was definitely involved in some capacity. Duran was working for Kerrigan even if he wasn't as loyal as he appeared.

Kerrigan didn't have to convince or manipulate the Protoss to kill the Cerebrates on Shakuras - they would've done that on their own soon enough since it is their last remaining homeworld (as far as we know ).

Yeah and she helped them do it. Kerrigan was pretty good at that, making sure she shared her enemies' goals in some way or another.

Kerrigan's successful "manipulation" of Mengsk, Raynor and Fenix can be attributed to the stupidity of the aforementioned parties (especially in Mengsks' case) in believing her convenient lies based on hearsay. Then again, the initial lie of being free of the Overmind and the possibility of therefore being good again does have merit.

She convinced them to work with her, I don't think it was stupid of them (she gave all three of them pretty lucrative offers that would be hard to pass up even if she betrayed them), and while it wasn't particularly smart of Kerrigan, it was something that took more intelligence than anything she did in Wings of Liberty.

Zeratul believing Kerrigan's words a second time (freeing the matriarch after killing the new Overmind for her) after she betrayed him in their earlier dealing with Aldaris but from reason hoping she'll keep her word is odd. How much is this attributed to Kerrigan's cunning and how much is this attributed to Zeratul being stupid and falling for it? As they say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

She kidnapped the Matriarch. That was fairly clever. Zeratul had to respond to that somehow. And if you'll remember he DIDN'T trust her, Raszagal had to convince him that killing the Overmind was a good idea regardless of how things turned out with Kerrigan.

Which -- was another idea of Kerrigan's.

[Laurentian]

Hmmm, the manual, official backstory and some in-game tidbits reveal that Raynor's Raiders had been fighting a losing guerilla war against Mengsk over the past 4 years. This hints that any serious rebellion Raynor did start may well have already been squashed by the time we see him at WoL's start. This could explain why he only has access to Marines only at the start as his forces have been depleted and why he's depressed. I doubt that Raynor could've survived for the past 4 years using just marines (even though in-game they own pretty much anything) from the beginning - not to mention he had access to a lot of Terran hardware throughout BW which you'd assumed he would still have.

Makes me wonder since Raynor's fight hasn't gone very well (especially if he made a previous serious attempt against Mengsk that failed) then why is he is in a position to launch a serious revolt against Mengsk and why does he do so well?

Also judging by StarCraft: Frontline: Homecoming it appears that right before WOL he visited Mar Sara to look back on his life. And that the Dominion has just annexed Mar Sara (good thing they didn't look for Raynor's old home or bar!). Of course none of this actually appears in game so we get the feeling that he is at some bar in Mar Sara for some reason and he rebels because Mengsk called him names.

These two benefits are utilitarian in nature even in spite of Mengsk pulling the entire thing off for selfish reasons.

Not sure if one can call selfish actions that unintentionally (If that is what you think that is?) cause good can be called utilitarian since you are not actually looking out for the greater good. Arguing Mengsk's actions as doing good, intentionally or not, is not necessarily the same as him being utilitarian.

To make things more brain-bending, revealing that Mengsk's destruction of Tarsonis was actually motivated by selfish reasons to the entire Terran populace would be detrimental for the greater good of the Terran race at the time since that will surely create division and outrage among the Terrans even more than before. This would possibly result in them to not only be leaderless as a whole but far more vulnerable to be picked off by the invading aliens and possibly ensuring the destruction of the entire Terran population in the sector.

Of course you could say the fact that not revealing it could have worse consequences since Mengsk is clearly selfish, incompetent, divisive and not looking out for the interests of Terrans so keeping it under wraps is not looking out for the greater good and will allow him to keep committing selfish atrocities. And that covering up heinous acts will lead to worse consequences down the road since the coverup is usually always worse than the actual act. Also by its very nature any sort of dissent causes division and outrage so you can justify suppressing every sort of dissent which usually is disastrous since incompetence and corruption are never exposed which will hamper any effort to defeat the alien threat. Also by covering up his atrocities he is committing a selfish act since it benefits him personally. This line of argument also assumes that Mengsk's interest are the Terran's own when that is clearly not the case.

[Turalyon]

Makes me wonder since Raynor's fight hasn't gone very well (especially if he made a previous serious attempt against Mengsk that failed) then why is he is in a position to launch a serious revolt against Mengsk and why does he do so well?

That is a good question. There are no hints or possible explanations found in WoL to properly explain it except perhaps when Tychus finds Raynor later and I assume he came by with some funding from Moebius to help Raynor. The rest is up to us to fancon.

Of course none of this actually appears in game so we get the feeling that he is at some bar in Mar Sara for some reason and he rebels because Mengsk called him names.

That's about right. Don't you just hate it when someone insults you while you're having a drink? RAAAAAAGE!!

Not sure if one can call selfish actions that unintentionally (If that is what you think that is?) cause good can be called utilitarian since you are not actually looking out for the greater good.

The definition of utilitarian does not require a statement of intent (for good or ill) of an individual's actions. Still, my statement was an attempt at trying to incorporate your belief and the knowledge that Mengsk is and always was a selfish ass, which was hitherto unknown at the time, into the context of his actions being possibly utilitarian.

Arguing Mengsk's actions as doing good, intentionally or not, is not necessarily the same as him being utilitarian.

You might need to define some of your terms for me here. If you mean "doing good" as "achieving a specific benefit for the greater majority" than the sentence doesn't make sense because that is indeed being utilitarian.

Of course you could say the fact that not revealing it could have worse consequences since Mengsk is clearly selfish, incompetent, divisive and not looking out for the interests of Terrans so keeping it under wraps is not looking out for the greater good and will allow him to keep committing selfish atrocities. And that covering up heinous acts will lead to worse consequences down the road since the coverup is usually always worse than the actual act. Also by its very nature any sort of dissent causes division and outrage so you can justify suppressing every sort of dissent which usually is disastrous since incompetence and corruption are never exposed which will hamper any effort to defeat the alien threat. Also by covering up his atrocities he is committing a selfish act since it benefits him personally. This line of argument also assumes that Mengsk's interest are the Terran's own when that is clearly not the case.

This is all a real possibility (and pretty much fact now considering WoL's portrayal of Mengsk) which I had already taken as a given. Once again, I'm attempting to demonstrate a possible flip-side with the assumption that Mengsk is utilitarian.

In Sc1 it is also reasonable to ask whether Mengsk's seemingly 'out-of character' rant really is proper evidence for the case of him being a "totally selfish and monomaniacal person from the start" since it is only one incident, appears last (therefore being memorable), could be misconstrued and possibly hearsay. And yes, I know that last sentence is bullcrap and apologetic to Mengsk given what we know about him now, but in order to wrap your head around him being possibly utilitarian you cannot even approach it and understand it by thinking secretly that he's still really just a "selfish evil bastard" (even when it is proven to be true later on).
Therefore, from a maintained utilitarian perspective of Mengsk, what you've mentioned above would not happen unless Mengsk misjudged peoples motivation and the overall situation regarding Terran affairs (which is entirely possible as well but that is discussing something else entirely again!).

[Laurentian]

You might need to define some of your terms for me here. If you mean "doing good" as "achieving a specific benefit for the greater majority" than the sentence doesn't make sense because that is indeed being utilitarian.

Well I mean did he deliberately intend these results that supposedly benefited the greater majority? And did he intend them to benefit the greater majority?

The definition of utilitarian does not require a statement of intent (for good or ill) of an individual's actions.

True, but otherwise an utilitarian can become vague and meaningless if they don't have an intent to benefit the greater majority as supposed to his personal desires. The whole concept can pretty much mean anything.

In Sc1 it is also reasonable to ask whether Mengsk's seemingly 'out-of character' rant really is proper evidence for the case of him being a "totally selfish and monomaniacal person from the start" since it is only one incident, appears last (therefore being memorable), could be misconstrued and possibly hearsay. And yes, I know that last sentence is bullcrap and apologetic to Mengsk given what we know about him now, but in order to wrap your head around him being possibly utilitarian you cannot even approach it and understand it by thinking secretly that he's still really just a "selfish evil bastard" (even when it is proven to be true later on).
Therefore, from a maintained utilitarian perspective of Mengsk, what you've mentioned above would not happen unless Mengsk misjudged peoples motivation and the overall situation regarding Terran affairs (which is entirely possible as well but that is discussing something else entirely again!).

I suppose, I'm just not very sure of the purpose of this discussion anymore? Yes if you want to think of Mengsk as utilitarian in the first game you can interpret all of his actions in that way, some reasonably, others less so. I don't agree with this line of argument but you can make it. Not sure what else I can add?

[Turalyon]

Well I mean did he deliberately intend these results that supposedly benefited the greater majority? And did he intend them to benefit the greater majority?

Until BW and WoL cemented that Mengsk is and most likely was only ever out for himself there is enough space to argue both ways, which I've been trying to demonstrate to you over the past few posts.

Mengsk's plans and rise to power (which is not necessarily a bad thing from a neutral perspective) does need the support of the greater majority. Like any real politician, the easiest and quickest method to do this is to divert attention to something else that is of more pressing (and you'd hope legitimate) concern. The Zerg and Protoss genocide of Humanity fits that bill quite nicely in all regards.

Afterall, there's no point in gaining power over an un-unified and disparate mess with it's head cut-off without having a plan to unite them since the whole Terran's future survival is currently at stake and that it'll just be the same as when the Confeds were in charge with o further action. As you can see, there is the potential for Tarsonis' destruction to suit both the greater majority and Mengsk's personal desires regardless of Mengsk's actual intent. Until BW and WoL furthered the "personal desire" angle of Mengsk, it could've went either way back then.

True, but otherwise an utilitarian can become vague and meaningless if they don't have an intent to benefit the greater majority as supposed to his personal desires. The whole concept can pretty much mean anything.

Someone doing utilitarian work does not necessarily mean they're altruistic, too (although you'd hope and wish them to be). Since being utilitarian involves the concept of some "greater good/ benefit/ majority" you do have to look at the operative word "greater". This alone implies that one's intent cannot be for the whole majority but for those you can help. Also, as I've said before, you have to expect that the "greater majority" would most likely include the person doing the utilitarian work as well.

Ideally, a person doing utilitarian work would have the same benefit (not more or greater) as the greater majority/good they are working for. Realistically, this is never the case. Because of this, you do have to somewhat weigh and compare the expected benefit of the action for the "greater majority" with the "selfish desire". If the potential weight (on an objective scale) is heavier for the benefit of the greater majority than it may still be classified as being utilitarian.

I suppose, I'm just not very sure of the purpose of this discussion anymore? Yes if you want to think of Mengsk as utilitarian in the first game you can interpret all of his actions in that way, some reasonably, others less so. I don't agree with this line of argument but you can make it. Not sure what else I can add?

I've stated my ultimate intent earlier. I'm just clarifying and expanding on our tangent discussion of "Mengsk as a utilitarian". I don't expect you to agree on anything nor am I wanting you to. That is all