Q&A 12

[Telenil]

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.

[The_Blade]

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.

[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.

[mr. peasant]

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.

[Turalyon]

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.

[Gradius]

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.

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.

[Telenil]

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.

[TcheQuevara]

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.

[Telenil]

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".

[Turalyon]

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?

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.

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.