[Theorcraft] - Duran ran the Deception Facility

[Visions of Khas]

Heh, yeah, I'm hoping Duran/Narud is rewarded for his service by being resurrected by Amon. Should be a simple matter for Amon, right?

- - - Updated - - -

Heh, yeah, I'm hoping Duran/Narud is rewarded for his service by being resurrected by Amon. Should be a simple matter for Amon, right?

[Gradius]

So is this not enough to then say that the Queen of Blades, and Sarah Kerrigan, are different personae?

Like Jekyll and Hyde? Not in my opinion. :P

Drugs are external stimuli. A person under their influence can act differently, to the point where they seem like a completely different person. However, that influence will cease once the external stimuli ceases as well. Yes, drugs can inflict lasting mental damage, but the person will not be acting the way they were while under said influence. That, and drug use is usually a decision made by the person under their influence.

And Kerrigan got her humanity back once the infestation was removed. So what's the difference?

Claiming that you were under the influence of drugs as a defence wouldn't be accepted as a defence in a criminal trial for instance.

Yes, the drug user is responsible, just like Kindregan tells us that Kerrigan is responsible:

"Kerrigan is (certainly in her mind) responsible for the terrible things she's done. "

Kerrigan's infestation bears resemblance to drugs in that it's a form of external stimuli as well. Here however, the similarities end.

It's the only similarity that matters. They're not two separate entities, and it's not up for debate. He says it right there.

Kerrigan becoming the QoB is something that she played no part in herself.

And not every drug user engages in drug abuse willingly. How does this blow out the drug analogy?

It was clear in SC1 that the Queen of Blades was, for all intents and purposes, not the same individual as Sarah Kerrigan in terms of identity. Oh, echoes remained to be sure, like how she spared Raynor and how she hated Mengsk and Duke, but by WoL, bar one single moment in the very last moment, Sarah Kerrigan was effectively dead.

Disagree. The Overmind left the greatness of her spirit to her, and she was a killer way before she became infested. The only thing that was clear is what Kindregan is telling us now, that Kerrigan's mind was twisted by the zerg mutagen. But Raynor sure as hell didn't treat her like a separate entity: "How many more people need to die before you realize what you've become?"

It's not until WoL retconned this by inserting the "don't give up" bit at the end of All-In that this even became a topic of debate. The very idea that the "original Kerrigan" was just chilling in the back of the Queen of Blade's mind the whole time is preposterous to me, but luckily, the Q&A retconned it right back. Yay! :P

[Hawki]

Heh, yeah, I'm hoping Duran/Narud is rewarded for his service by being resurrected by Amon. Should be a simple matter for Amon, right?

That, or he never died. I just think Duran needs a proper sendoff, to the extent of his name being actually uttered, and tied in throughout the game as a whole. Zeratul is a good choice IMO because Duran as we know him was revealed under Zeratul's watch, and LotV being a protoss campaign, it makes sense for a protoss to do the required actions to drive the plot.

Like Jekyll and Hyde? Not in my opinion. :P

I considered using that as an example, but it's not a good one. Jekyll and Hyde are equal and opposite, and switch back and forth. Kerrigan and the Queen of Blades haven't switched as rapidly, and one's always dominated the other.

[quote = Gradius]And Kerrigan got her humanity back once the infestation was removed. So what's the difference?[/quote]

As I stated, the effects of a drug will wear off in time of their own accord. Kerrigan wasn't just going to "get better" over time because her body and psyche had been changed permenantly bar something drastic.

Yes, the drug user is responsible, just like Kindregan tells us that Kerrigan is responsible:

"Kerrigan is (certainly in her mind) responsible for the terrible things she's done. "

So, Kerrigan holds herself responsible for something that she's done that she, in her current state, had no association with...just like every character who blames themselves for allowing themselves to be controlled by an external force...why is a natural human reaction being cited as an example of an objective truth? If we cut out the "certainly in her mind" part, then yes, the statement lacks ambiguity, but it's at odds with everything else:

Statement 1: The Queen of Blades and Sarah Kerrigan are not quite the same person.

Conclusion: They're separate, at least to an extent.

Statement 2: The Queen of Blades is essentially Sarah Kerrigan under the influence of some devastating forces: incredible power, a dominating level of psi energy, and the presence of Zerg mutagen from the cellular level up.

Conclusion: The Queen of Blades is a personality made manifest, and kept separate (see statement/conclusion 1), stemming from zerg influence.

Statement 3: To be clear, the Queen of Blades is not a separate entity that possessed Kerrigan.

Conclusion: So, er, she's not a spirit. I'm not aware of anyone who claimed as such, but no, QoB is not an external entity. From what I can gather from statements 1 and 2, the QoB remains a distinct persona that stems from the influences in statement 2.

Statement 4: Kerrigan is (certainly in her mind) responsible for the terrible things she's done. She has immense guilt for those actions, but she was not completely in her "right mind" in Brood War.

Conclusion: This statement feels at odds with the others to an extent. Statements 1-3 have supported the idea of the QoB being separate. I can see how this statement could be used to claim that Kerrigan and the QoB are one and the same in terms of personality, but I contest it based on statements 1-3, and what we know of her origins. Kerrigan never developed as a character to become the QoB. That, and the assertion of Kerrigan "certainly in her mind" being responsible for the things she's done does correspond to a character's usual reaction when being under control or altered.

Statement 5: All of that is a roundabout way of saying the Queen of Blades felt no need to kill Mengsk. She did not see him as a threat. Sarah Kerrigan, on the other hand, knows that Mengsk wants her dead, and she very much holds a grudge for his abandoning her on Tarsonis.

Conclusion: This statement once again makes clear distinction between the two, and is perhaps the clearest distinction there is. QoB does this, Kerrigan does that. Nowhere does it say "Kerrigan as the Queen of Blades" for instance.

Overall: Most of the statement seems to correspond with the idea of the QoB being a separate persona. Statement 4 is the closest we get to saying that they're one and the same by virtue of absolutism, its near statement that "Kerrigan is responsible."

Yes, the drug user is responsible, just like Kindregan tells us that Kerrigan is responsible:

And not every drug user engages in drug abuse willingly. How does this blow out the drug analogy?

You've just declared up above that the drug user is responsible, that not everyone engages in drug use apparently being irrelevant. But the point I was making about the drug analogy is, as I've stated more than once, is that the effects of a drug will fade over time. Infestation does not.

Disagree. The Overmind left the greatness of her spirit to her, and she was a killer way before she became infested. The only thing that was clear is what Kindregan is telling us now, that Kerrigan's mind was twisted by the zerg mutagen. But Raynor sure as hell didn't treat her like a separate entity: "How many more people need to die before you realize what you've become?"

Okay, few points:

-The Overmind's full line is "the greatness of her spirit has been left to her; that the Swarms might benefit from her fierce example. Fear not her designs, for she is bound to me as intimately as any Cerebrate." Now I doubt that Kerrigan was bound to the Overmind to the same extent as cerebrates were (see QoB and the epilogue text of SC1), but the phrase "greatness of her spirit" is, in my mind, indicative of her ability in combat, determination, savagery, etc. These aren't really features of a full personality, but more aspects that can be just as easily used to negative ends as positive ones.

-Kerrigan never relished in killing bar Rumm, and she had every reason to hate him. It states in the manual that Kerrigan never embraced the darker aspects of her nature, and in SC1 she routinely expresses disgust at the use of psi emitters, and the mass bloodshed they will cause. This isn't the kind of person that is going to kill for enjoyment. There's far too large a jump between terran Kerrigan and QoB Kerrigan to attribute that to a character willingly undergoing the change.

-Raynor's assertion doesn't hold merit of its own. I can just as easily point out his statement of "that wasn't you, Sarah," in regards to her statement that "I slaughtered millions as the Queen of Blades..." (which is no doubt being used as evidence that they are indeed one and the same). A character saying anything about anything is always going to be within the context of their own viewpoint. At the time, no, we had no reason to suspect that anything of the old Sarah Kerrigan lay within the Queen of Blades at that moment in time*, so I can't fault Raynor for making that statement. What I will also say however, is the notion that they were the same individual in terms of persona. There was no character buildup to her becoming the QoB, and while I can get behind the idea that the Overmind drew out traits that were already there, it's still a case of implanting a new body, new mindset, etc. onto another human being. A mindset that apparently didn't fully kick in until very late in the cycle given that Kerrigan called out to Raynor while inside the chrysalis.

*As in, we get two hints in BW, and the ending of "TC" is one of them. Poor Jimmy didn't stay around long enough.

It's not until WoL retconned this by inserting the "don't give up" bit at the end of All-In that this even became a topic of debate. The very idea that the "original Kerrigan" was just chilling in the back of the Queen of Blade's mind the whole time is preposterous to me, but luckily, the Q&A retconned it right back. Yay! :P

Once again you've used a very liberal definition of the term "retcon" - if the revelation that elements of the old Sarah Kerrigan remained in the QoB is a retcon, then every other revelation in every piece of fiction is a retcon. Heck, Lord of the Rings in its entirety becomes a retcon as there was no hint of the ring's true nature in The Hobbit (bar the Jackson films of course).

But it's beside the point. Personally I found it quite fitting given Kerrigan's hints of her old self in the timeframe I established, and the idea of the old personality being responsible, if only on the subconscious level, is one I didn't have any trouble swallowing, not to mention that there's an in-universe precedent for Kerrigan to remain in telepathic contact with Raynor. And also at this point I'd prefer to agree to disagree, because not only has this become a topic about Kerrigan when I only introduced the video to give some discussion about Duran and Amon, but I'd like to remind you this is Brian Kindragan we're talking about. The same writer who declared there was a Thor error when none existed, who declared the RPG and Ghost non-canon when elements had both been incorporated into canon, who if your take on his lines is correct is retconning something that WoL established that never retconed anything to begin with, and isn't even writing for SC2 anymore.

[Gradius]

As I stated, the effects of a drug will wear off in time of their own accord. Kerrigan wasn't just going to "get better" over time because her body and psyche had been changed permenantly bar something drastic.

You've latched onto literally the least important difference in this analogy. Did you ever hear me say that drugs and infestation are the same exact thing?

Analogy - Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

Statement 1: The Queen of Blades and Sarah Kerrigan are not quite the same person.

Conclusion: They're separate, at least to an extent.

The same way that Slash and Saul Hudson are separate characters. He's only comparing the two for the benefit of the audience. Sarah Kerrigan had diametrically opposed character traits as a human vs. as a zerg.

Statement 2: The Queen of Blades is essentially Sarah Kerrigan under the influence of some devastating forces: incredible power, a dominating level of psi energy, and the presence of Zerg mutagen from the cellular level up.

Conclusion: The Queen of Blades is a personality made manifest, and kept separate (see statement/conclusion 1), stemming from zerg influence.

Almost like she's the influence of an illicit substance.

Look, he's telling you right there that there's no split personality bullcrap going on. It's one person under the effects of forces beyond her control. That "force" is the zerg mutagen, etc, not another character.

Statement 3: To be clear, the Queen of Blades is not a separate entity that possessed Kerrigan.

Conclusion: So, er, she's not a spirit. I'm not aware of anyone who claimed as such, but no, QoB is not an external entity.

Wings of Liberty decided to throw in the "don't give up!" line while the queen of blades was still attacking us, so it wouldn't be any surprise if people thought she was an external entity, or at least suffering from dissociative identity disorder.

A separate persona can be an entity that can possess you. Why would you think Brian is calling her a spirit? If it doesn't make sense in your mind, why do you expect it to convince me?

That, and the assertion of Kerrigan "certainly in her mind" being responsible for the things she's done does correspond to a character's usual reaction when being under control or altered.

Kind of like while under drugs, right? :P

I don't see how Kerrigan being remorseful bolsters your position in any way. How is that proof for a separate persona?

Statement 5: All of that is a roundabout way of saying the Queen of Blades felt no need to kill Mengsk. She did not see him as a threat. Sarah Kerrigan, on the other hand, knows that Mengsk wants her dead, and she very much holds a grudge for his abandoning her on Tarsonis.

Conclusion: This statement once again makes clear distinction between the two, and is perhaps the clearest distinction there is. QoB does this, Kerrigan does that. Nowhere does it say "Kerrigan as the Queen of Blades" for instance.

Slash dresses in a tophat and plays the guitar in front of millions. Saul Hudson cracks open a beer with his buddies.

QoB does this, Kerrigan does that.

It doesn't mean there's split-personality going on. The only reason there's a distinction is because Kerrigan does wildly different things while under the influence of zerg mutagen. There's not a shred of evidence for split personality, even if I decide to interpret Brian's answer the way you have.

Are you talking about dissociative identity disorder? Because I can begin digging into the differences between that condition and Kerrigan's any time.

You've just declared up above that the drug user is responsible, that not everyone engages in drug use apparently being irrelevant.

Yeah?

People tend to accept responsibility for things that they've done, even while under an influence. Goes for Kerrigan and drug abuse victims.

But the point I was making about the drug analogy is, as I've stated more than once, is that the effects of a drug will fade over time. Infestation does not.

Again, so what?

The drug user will be addicted and keep feeding his addiction. Same net result. Happy? :P

-The Overmind's full line is "the greatness of her spirit has been left to her; that the Swarms might benefit from her fierce example. Fear not her designs, for she is bound to me as intimately as any Cerebrate." Now I doubt that Kerrigan was bound to the Overmind to the same extent as cerebrates were (see QoB and the epilogue text of SC1), but the phrase "greatness of her spirit" is, in my mind, indicative of her ability in combat, determination, savagery, etc. These aren't really features of a full personality, but more aspects that can be just as easily used to negative ends as positive ones.

-Kerrigan never relished in killing bar Rumm, and she had every reason to hate him. It states in the manual that Kerrigan never embraced the darker aspects of her nature, and in SC1 she routinely expresses disgust at the use of psi emitters, and the mass bloodshed they will cause. This isn't the kind of person that is going to kill for enjoyment. There's far too large a jump between terran Kerrigan and QoB Kerrigan to attribute that to a character willingly undergoing the change.

-Raynor's assertion doesn't hold merit of its own. I can just as easily point out his statement of "that wasn't you, Sarah," in regards to her statement that "I slaughtered millions as the Queen of Blades..." (which is no doubt being used as evidence that they are indeed one and the same). A character saying anything about anything is always going to be within the context of their own viewpoint. At the time, no, we had no reason to suspect that anything of the old Sarah Kerrigan lay within the Queen of Blades at that moment in time*, so I can't fault Raynor for making that statement. What I will also say however, is the notion that they were the same individual in terms of persona. There was no character buildup to her becoming the QoB, and while I can get behind the idea that the Overmind drew out traits that were already there, it's still a case of implanting a new body, new mindset, etc. onto another human being. A mindset that apparently didn't fully kick in until very late in the cycle given that Kerrigan called out to Raynor while inside the chrysalis.

*As in, we get two hints in BW, and the ending of "TC" is one of them. Poor Jimmy didn't stay around long enough.

Yes, that's what infestation does to a person. It alters/removes existing characteristics of the victim's personae. That's what makes the split personality argument completely bunk to me. Infestation doesn't create a backup duplicate of the original personality that just sits there so that the individual can be conveniently deinfested. There's zero evidence for split personality in any of the games until All-In.

Once again you've used a very liberal definition of the term "retcon" - if the revelation that elements of the old Sarah Kerrigan remained in the QoB is a retcon, then every other revelation in every piece of fiction is a retcon. Heck, Lord of the Rings in its entirety becomes a retcon as there was no hint of the ring's true nature in The Hobbit (bar the Jackson films of course).

But it's beside the point. Personally I found it quite fitting given Kerrigan's hints of her old self in the timeframe I established, and the idea of the old personality being responsible, if only on the subconscious level, is one I didn't have any trouble swallowing, not to mention that there's an in-universe precedent for Kerrigan to remain in telepathic contact with Raynor. And also at this point I'd prefer to agree to disagree, because not only has this become a topic about Kerrigan when I only introduced the video to give some discussion about Duran and Amon,

First you have clear precedents for infestation, being that the victim's brain is "twisted" to fit the zerg. Then you have WoL where Kerrigan tells us to "not give up" while simultaneously attacking us, suggesting dissociative identity disorder, then you have Kindergan's Q&A telling us that the first thing was actually right. Let's face it, it's not that "liberal" of a retcon. Don't see how you can remotely compare this to "every other revelation".

but I'd like to remind you this is Brian Kindragan we're talking about. The same writer who declared there was a Thor error when none existed,

Elaborate? Pretty sure the Dominion using Thors two years before Swann invented them is an error.

who declared the RPG and Ghost non-canon when elements had both been incorporated into canon

I could care less about the RPG, but I'm totally fine with Ghost being non-canon. It was never released. Lots of things change from development to release. There were units in SC2's development that don't exist in-universe anymore, but I don't see anybody complaining about that. :P

[TheEconomist]

Claiming that you were under the influence of drugs as a defence wouldn't be accepted as a defence in a criminal trial for instance.

Unless you're female and regret the night before.

*ba dum tsh*

[Hawki]

You've latched onto literally the least important difference in this analogy. Did you ever hear me say that drugs and infestation are the same exact thing?

Analogy - Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.

You're shooting your own point out of the water. No, I can't quote you directly as saying that, but the use of the drugs analogy suggests that the similarities are so close that a comparison can be drawn. I agree with your analogy definition more or less. By virtue of agreeing with it, I disagree that using drugs as an analogy is viable to infestation because no, they're not the same thing. As I've been saying all along.

The same way that Slash and Saul Hudson are separate characters. He's only comparing the two for the benefit of the audience. Sarah Kerrigan had diametrically opposed character traits as a human vs. as a zerg.

I had to look up who Slash/Saul even was, and let me say, I'm not impressed. It's an even worse comparison than Jekyll and Hyde because at least with that split, they lacked control over the transformation. Slash/Saul and any other actor who uses a pseudonym has full control over the transformation, and said transformation is a conscious presentation of oneself.

As for the statement, I agree that he's making it for the benefit of the audience, by telling them that they're not the same person, in as much that two different personas exist (this is not the same thing as split personality, and looking back, you seem to be the only one using the term, something that I'll address later.

Almost like she's the influence of an illicit substance.

Look, he's telling you right there that there's no split personality bullcrap going on. It's one person under the effects of forces beyond her control. That "force" is the zerg mutagen, etc, not another character.

Yes, because psionic forces, mutagen, etc. are exactly like illicit substances. And no, he's not saying that, he's saying that the Queen of Blades is a persona that is resulting from those forces. No-one in the thread was suggesting a "split personality," because "split personality" is, to use an analogy that's already been brought up, Jekyll and Hyde, that's equal and opposite, and can rear up its head at any time.

Wings of Liberty decided to throw in the "don't give up!" line while the queen of blades was still attacking us, so it wouldn't be any surprise if people thought she was an external entity, or at least suffering from dissociative identity disorder.

A separate persona can be an entity that can possess you. Why would you think Brian is calling her a spirit? If it doesn't make sense in your mind, why do you expect it to convince me?

Well, all I can say is that it would surprise me if people thought either of that. I'm not saying that Brian is calling her a spirit, I'm saying his words are phrased as if people have asked whether she is. When someone uses the term "possess" I automatically think "external force," unless it's used in the context of a phrase (e.g. "I was possessed by rage as I saw the brutality of violence."). Cheesy lines aside, the idea of people thinking "personality disorder" would also surprise me.

Just so we're clear, I think there's been a misunderstanding here, so I want to clear something up. I've so far argued that Sarah Kerrigan and the Queen of Blades are two different personalities/disorders, by virtue of the latter being impressed upon the former. I've already used similar characters as examples. What I disagree with is the term personality disorder/split personality, because in a situation like that the two can surface at any time, and one doesn't hold dominance over the other - is Jekyll truly Jekyll, or is Hyde the true Jekyll for instance? Kerrigan does not fit this paradigm because up until WoL, there was no evidence of it, and even the quote in of itself is not indicative of a split personality, but more remnants of the old one.

Kind of like while under drugs, right? :P

I don't see how Kerrigan being remorseful bolsters your position in any way. How is that proof for a separate persona?

Because if it was the same persona, Kerrigan would never be greatful for being de-infested, would never act the way she did post-infestation, would seek to regain infestation for the sake of infestation (she does it as a means, not an end in HotS), etc. And please, enough with the drugs. I'm sick of explaining why that's a terrible analogy. They can wear off, a person will revert to their old state on their own, it's external stimuli on the mind and body rather than the mind and body themselves being altered, etc.

It doesn't mean there's split-personality going on. The only reason there's a distinction is because Kerrigan does wildly different things while under the influence of zerg mutagen. There's not a shred of evidence for split personality, even if I decide to interpret Brian's answer the way you have.

Would you please stop using the phrase "split personality?" Separate personas, yes, that's what I've argued, I've never argued for the existence of a split personality. You may ask what's the difference, and I'll tell you - split personality can rear up its head at any time, under any circumstance, and not have a clear dominant form. Now, a work can play around with that a bit, but the SK/QoB divide doesn't meet any of that criteria. The only time where SK distinctly rears up inside QoB is in AI. Which does have a very specific circumstance. It's the old persona surfacing, it is not a case of a symptom that has gone back and forth since the point of infestation. And it's easy to guess what those circumstances are (chance of defeat, presence of artefact, presence of Raynor).

Now if Kerrigan hadn't reared her head up, but still became as she is in HotS, there'd be very little difference. We'd still have 2, maybe 3 distinct personas that are all triggered through a single key event. This is not a split personality. There is no natural alternation. It could be you're using "personality" and "persona" as synonyms, but I'd like to make it clear that they're not (heck, even VoK used the term "personae"). A personality is flexible, it develops on its own, it constantly changes. A persona is, by literal definition, a distinct role, a distinct state of being, that can include different personalities by extension, but that's part of the persona, not the cause of it. SK and QoB are very separate personas that have only alternated because of extreme circumstance. So the notion of the old persona surfacing due to such circumstance is one I never had a problem with. Drugs have been used by way of comparison, but I think brainwashing is the better contempory example. Forced on someone, can't be easily changed, etc. By the same example, if I'd undergone brainwashing between now and later, and came back as a completely different person, people would have the right to say "you're no longer X." Difference is that through Kerrigan we have the benefit of separate names for those separate personas.

Elaborate? Pretty sure the Dominion using Thors two years before Swann invented them is an error.

If I entertain the idea that Swann did invent the Thor, it's a voodoo shark. Not only does it contradict Thundergod, but the SC2 viral campaign and WoL itself (presence of commercial upgrades and the Dominion's use of them). Swann's deployment of them is iffy, but it's the deployment that's the issue, not everything around it.

I could care less about the RPG,

"Couldn't."

but I'm totally fine with Ghost being non-canon. It was never released. Lots of things change from development to release. There were units in SC2's development that don't exist in-universe anymore, but I don't see anybody complaining about that. :P

Well, actually I do find myself miffed about units being non-canon on the principle of not being implemented. Command Performance is a story I appreciate for instance, in that it canonized the Warhound. But here's the problem with declaring in absolutes that Ghost and Alternity are non-canon:

Alternity: Zerglings are 1m tall.

Ghost: The KLF has a base on Abaddon.

Both of these are random facts from both products, and many other such facts exist (e.g. the Helios story, the origins of archons, etc.) Neither of these facts contradict anything or are problematic in themselves, but by the declaration that neither are canon, neither fact is canon by extension. It's more irksome when things from both have made their way into canon products (e.g. small arms and the Stinger and Grizzly respectively). So using the latter as an example, Stingers exist, but all the data Ghost provided on them is invalid, despite not contradicting anything? Um, okay...

It's also the attitude that irks me, that instead of salvaging material from both and declaring non-canonicity as a last resort for the material that's deemed ireconciable, the opposite's been applied. It's the same principle with Lucas Arts declaring that all Star Wars material is non-canon bar the six core films and The Clone Wars because of producing a sequel trilogy that no-one asked for. You'll forgive me for being skeptical that material such as Knights of the Old Republic is going to affect Episode VII... 0_0

Anyway, that's that. These responses have been getting longer and longer. Time for a break. I think all this talk of drugs has started affecting my own being.

[Gradius]

You're shooting your own point out of the water. No, I can't quote you directly as saying that, but the use of the drugs analogy suggests that the similarities are so close that a comparison can be drawn.

That is definitely the case here. Drugs and infestation alter your mental processes and remove inhibitions. That's the most important point. You've decided to nitpick the fact that drugs are temporary.
1) Who gives a crap?
2) It's irrelevant because a drug user is addicted to them anyway, and so the net effect is the same.

Stop acting like this irrelevant minutiae has any affect on the main point of the analogy.

I agree with your analogy definition more or less. By virtue of agreeing with it, I disagree that using drugs as an analogy is viable to infestation because no, they're not the same thing. As I've been saying all along.

It actually doesn't sound like you understand what an analogy is.

I had to look up who Slash/Saul even was, and let me say, I'm not impressed. It's an even worse comparison than Jekyll and Hyde because at least with that split, they lacked control over the transformation. Slash/Saul and any other actor who uses a pseudonym has full control over the transformation, and said transformation is a conscious presentation of oneself.

I'm talking about Kindregan's decision to discuss them as two separate entities. This is not an analogy to Kerrigan...

Yes, because psionic forces, mutagen, etc. are exactly like illicit substances.

A-na-lo-gy.

And no, he's not saying that, he's saying that the Queen of Blades is a persona that is resulting from those forces. No-one in the thread was suggesting a "split personality," because "split personality" is, to use an analogy that's already been brought up, Jekyll and Hyde, that's equal and opposite, and can rear up its head at any time.

You're backpedaling. You said "By the quote, doesn't Kindragan actually confirm that they're effectively separate individuals?" That's what you think. You think they're separate individuals in one person's brain. That's what the quoted video says too. A separate individual is not the same as "a persona that is resulting from those forces". That's what me and Kindregan are saying, not you.

Just so we're clear, I think there's been a misunderstanding here, so I want to clear something up. I've so far argued that Sarah Kerrigan and the Queen of Blades are two different personalities/disorders, by virtue of the latter being impressed upon the former. I've already used similar characters as examples. What I disagree with is the term personality disorder/split personality, because in a situation like that the two can surface at any time, and one doesn't hold dominance over the other - is Jekyll truly Jekyll, or is Hyde the true Jekyll for instance? Kerrigan does not fit this paradigm because up until WoL, there was no evidence of it, and even the quote in of itself is not indicative of a split personality, but more remnants of the old one.

Actually, in multiple personality disorder, there is a dominant personality that determines the individual's behavior, with altars that take over.

and even the quote in of itself is not indicative of a split personality, but more remnants of the old one.

How? In that moment she's still the queen of blades and she's still attacking you.

Because if it was the same persona, Kerrigan would never be greatful for being de-infested, would never act the way she did post-infestation, would seek to regain infestation for the sake of infestation (she does it as a means, not an end in HotS), etc.

It's not the same persona, but it's still the same individual. The persona has changed because the external stimulus has been removed.

And please, enough with the drugs. I'm sick of explaining why that's a terrible analogy. They can wear off, a person will revert to their old state on their own, it's external stimuli on the mind and body rather than the mind and body themselves being altered, etc.

You don't think drugs alter the brain or body? You think that a drug addiction will just "wear off" and the person will "revert to their old state on their own"? Come on now... -_-

It sounds like you think it's terrible analogy because you don't understand how drugs work.

Would you please stop using the phrase "split personality?" Separate personas, yes, that's what I've argued, I've never argued for the existence of a split personality.

Your quote: "doesn't Kindragan actually confirm that they're effectively separate individuals?"

You're still backpedaling. Two separate individuals in one brain is "split personality disorder" by definition. Split "personae" is something that any normal person can do, like Saul Hudson.

You may ask what's the difference, and I'll tell you - split personality can rear up its head at any time, under any circumstance, and not have a clear dominant form.

It can, but it doesn't have to.

Now, a work can play around with that a bit, but the SK/QoB divide doesn't meet any of that criteria. The only time where SK distinctly rears up inside QoB is in AI. Which does have a very specific circumstance. It's the old persona surfacing, it is not a case of a symptom that has gone back and forth since the point of infestation. And it's easy to guess what those circumstances are (chance of defeat, presence of artefact, presence of Raynor).

Your presumption that multiple personality disorder can't have a trigger and is always random is just wrong. This doesn't prove that it's not split personality. A personae is something that is controlled, it does not "surface". Personalities in multiple personality disorder do do that.

Now if Kerrigan hadn't reared her head up, but still became as she is in HotS, there'd be very little difference. We'd still have 2, maybe 3 distinct personas that are all triggered through a single key event. This is not a split personality. There is no natural alternation. It could be you're using "personality" and "persona" as synonyms, but I'd like to make it clear that they're not (heck, even VoK used the term "personae"). A personality is flexible, it develops on its own, it constantly changes. A persona is, by literal definition, a distinct role, a distinct state of being, that can include different personalities by extension, but that's part of the persona, not the cause of it. SK and QoB are very separate personas that have only alternated because of extreme circumstance. So the notion of the old persona surfacing due to such circumstance is one I never had a problem with. Drugs have been used by way of comparison, but I think brainwashing is the better contempory example. Forced on someone, can't be easily changed, etc. By the same example, if I'd undergone brainwashing between now and later, and came back as a completely different person, people would have the right to say "you're no longer X." Difference is that through Kerrigan we have the benefit of separate names for those separate personas.

This is why nobody ever said she had multiple personality disorder until the end of All-In. Either way, while it's obvious that Kerrigan probably doesn't meet the clinical standards for "multiple personality disorder" because she doesn't oscillate between the two so frequently, it's still easy to see why fans would resort to this terminology, as it's not entirely inaccurate. It certainly has way more clout than "split personae".

If I entertain the idea that Swann did invent the Thor, it's a voodoo shark. Not only does it contradict Thundergod, but the SC2 viral campaign and WoL itself (presence of commercial upgrades and the Dominion's use of them). Swann's deployment of them is iffy, but it's the deployment that's the issue, not everything around it.

It's still an error though. Don't see what the harm is in him having the balls to admit it.

WoL itself (presence of commercial upgrades and the Dominion's use of them).

The Thor is not the only offender here. The Dominion use plenty of Stetmann's inventions.

"Couldn't."

http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/

Well, actually I do find myself miffed about units being non-canon on the principle of not being implemented. Command Performance is a story I appreciate for instance, in that it canonized the Warhound. But here's the problem with declaring in absolutes that Ghost and Alternity are non-canon:

Alternity: Zerglings are 1m tall.

Ghost: The KLF has a base on Abaddon.

Both of these are random facts from both products, and many other such facts exist (e.g. the Helios story, the origins of archons, etc.) Neither of these facts contradict anything or are problematic in themselves, but by the declaration that neither are canon, neither fact is canon by extension. It's more irksome when things from both have made their way into canon products (e.g. small arms and the Stinger and Grizzly respectively). So using the latter as an example, Stingers exist, but all the data Ghost provided on them is invalid, despite not contradicting anything? Um, okay...

It's also the attitude that irks me, that instead of salvaging material from both and declaring non-canonicity as a last resort for the material that's deemed ireconciable, the opposite's been applied. It's the same principle with Lucas Arts declaring that all Star Wars material is non-canon bar the six core films and The Clone Wars because of producing a sequel trilogy that no-one asked for. You'll forgive me for being skeptical that material such as Knights of the Old Republic is going to affect Episode VII... 0_0

Anyway, that's that. These responses have been getting longer and longer. Time for a break. I think all this talk of drugs has started affecting my own being.

So you don't like that the material was wasted? I get that, but how does one go about looking for more information on the Stinger for instance? Other than the wiki and outdated sites that covered Ghost, you can't. The game was never released. Why should the company be obligated to support something that might have already changed in development anyway before it got canceled?

[Telenil]

You're backpedaling.

You make it sound like it would be a bad thing. Assuming someone's opinion did change, well, isn't that the point of discussing a subject?

Because if it was the same persona, Kerrigan would never be greatful for being de-infested, would never act the way she did post-infestation, would seek to regain infestation for the sake of infestation (she does it as a means, not an end in HotS), etc.

Not necessarily. Kerrigan says being a Zerg feels great when confronting Raynor right after her infestation, but calls it "the hell I've been through" once released from the Overmind's influence. She is definitely the same "persona" in Starcraft and Brood War, and she still has very different opinions and reactions.
Granted, the influence of the Overmind was far greater than whatever Zerg trait might have played a role, I'm just pointing out that there is a precedent for influences that radically change the perspective of the person.

[Gradius]

You make it sound like it would be a bad thing. Assuming someone's opinion did change, well, isn't that the point of discussing a subject

If we can recognize it, sure. Why would I want to debate somebody who's actually agreeing with me? That'd be essentially bickering over nothing.

[TheEconomist]

Did Telenil just admit to actually changing his opinion mid-debate? Holy fuck. I have long dreamed such a scenario but when it finally comes, I'm not even involved. The Gods are cruel. But much respect to Telenil.