Q&A 12

[Telenil]

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.

[TcheQuevara]

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.

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.

[Turalyon]

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.

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.

[TcheQuevara]

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

I know - this time I made it on purpose 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.

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?

[Telenil]

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.

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.

[mr. peasant]

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?

[TcheQuevara]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[Telenil]

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

France.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Turalyon]

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.

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.

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").

[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.