Favorite / Least Favorite Characters

[Hawki]

Which is not unreasonable to infer. He does follow Raynor, the "good" guy, all the way to the end so he must be "good" at some level, too.

And Raynor, the "good guy," follows Mengsk, who must also be a "good guy" as well.

Come on, good/bad following the opposite (if we're even using such terms) isn't an indication of much by itself.

Given the long-standing association between Raynor and the Magistrate at the point in time in which this line is delivered, is it easier to believe that Raynor is saying this to the magistrate out of some possible concern for the Magistrate's well-being or that Raynor is just a bullish ass-hole telling the Magistrate what to do?

Can I go with a third option? That Raynor's acting like a human being and demanding that someone come with him for reasons such as a) needing the manpower, and b) personal validation of his decision?

If I'm denied such an option, then I still have to go with option 2, in that there's been no sign of any supposed friendship up to this point, and that the line delivery is, by itself, authoritarian, bullying, etc., as is its delivery.

[Turalyon]

And Raynor, the "good guy," follows Mengsk, who must also be a "good guy" as well.

Come on, good/bad following the opposite (if we're even using such terms) isn't an indication of much by itself.

I did say "all the way to the end". That distinction is important and one that you conveniently missed to make your point. Since Raynor is the only character that can be said to the most "good" (I say "most" because a real upstanding morally good person would've baulked immediately at the use of Psi Emitters on Antiga) of all characters in that campaign, having the Magistrate help bail him out early in the campaign (when he didn't have to) and to remain at Raynor's side after Mengsk's true colours were revealed (when he didn't have to) gives us clues for us to infer that the Masgistrate, like Raynor, is a fairly morally decent (or "good" as much as Sc1 allows at any rate) sort of fellow.

Can I go with a third option? That Raynor's acting like a human being and demanding that someone come with him for reasons such as a) needing the manpower, and b) personal validation of his decision?

You may definitely take this option but what power/influence does Raynor have to make such a demand and to expect the Magistrate to agree and join up with him? If the Magistrate was impartially neutral to both Raynor and Mengsk, the safer option for the Magistrate is for him to side with Mengsk against Raynor. And yes, I know we can always fall back to the baseline reason that it's due to "narrative/author convenience" but assuming that the scenario were real we have to assume that there's some sort of positive association between the two - which isn't hard to believe given Raynor's general "buddy-buddy" demeanour towards most folk.

Really, I could throw in a fourth option and say the Magistrate has a deathwish and is suicidal. That would fit his actions, too. Would that be easier to for you to naturally assume that this (the magistrate being somewhat mentally disturbed) is the case? If there really was nothing we can infer about the Magistrate, this could be an equally acceptable reason for his actions, too. I wonder how many people would agree with that assessment compared to the "Raynor and Magistrate were friendly to each other" assessment.

If I'm denied such an option, then I still have to go with option 2, in that there's been no sign of any supposed friendship up to this point, and that the line delivery is, by itself, authoritarian, bullying, etc., as is its delivery.

Oh, Raynor's just angry in that moment about Kerrigan being lost.... I mean, if that's an acceptable excuse to explain away Raynor's outburst in BW about cutting his ties with Kerrigan to have him later just change his mind about her behind the scenes, I can't see why this excuse can't be used here. If I may sidebar, really, there was no real sign that Raynor showed any romantic feelings toward Kerrigan either (beyond wanting to bang a hot-looking chick - a thought that naturally crosses every average heterosexual males mind beyond count), yet I'm sure many people still infer it and more, accept it as being there all the time. This is no different.

We also have to take into account Raynor's full speech. He qualifies the "you better come with me" with the following line: "there's no tellin' who Arcturus'll screw over next". Why would Raynor bother even saying that if not for some concern over others? If Raynor didn't care about the Magistrate he would have scarpered by himself without telling him. There's no indication that Raynor can't muster up enough manpower on his own nor is there evidence that he requires validation (his mind seems pretty made up to me at that point) - they're just further speculation that one has to come up with out of the blue to further explain him somehow not being friendly to the Magistrate (which is hard to believe given Raynor's general nature towards those he doesn't have a beef with).

[Hawki]

I did say "all the way to the end". That distinction is important and one that you conveniently missed to make your point.

I didn't miss the point, I was making the point that "all the way to the end" is academic. I'm sure plenty of good people stayed with the SoK post-Tarsonis, and that otherwise morally reprehensible people still jumped ship, if not for reasons of virtue. Does Michael Liberty become a less morally sound individual through not sticking with Raynor, even if he still abandoned Mengsk?

Point is, as I've said before, actions don't say much without the context. That the magistrate stays with Raynor tells me little about his mindset, only that, at least in the heat of that moment, Raynor is a preferable option to Mengsk. The how's and why's are up to debate, and Raynor certainly doesn't come off as an angel when he basically orders the magistrate to come with him.

You may definitely take this option but what power/influence does Raynor have to make such a demand and to expect the Magistrate to agree and join up with him?

Well, he did it before at Backwater. It's already established that Raynor can, for whatever reason, get the magisrate to do what he wants. No, I don't think that makes Raynor a bad person (Backwater is based on altruism), but if Raynor can convince the magistrate to defy the status quo once through a single demand, then it stands to reason that he can get him to do it again when he's in the mood he is. It comes off to me less the magistrate being someone who's a morally upstanding individual and more like someone who's willing to go with the flow and let himself be dictated to.

If the Magistrate was impartially neutral to both Raynor and Mengsk, the safer option for the Magistrate is for him to side with Mengsk against Raynor. And yes, I know we can always fall back to the baseline reason that it's due to "narrative/author convenience" but assuming that the scenario were real we have to assume that there's some sort of positive association between the two - which isn't hard to believe given Raynor's general "buddy-buddy" demeanour towards most folk.

Which I'd be more inclined to believe if that positive association was actually on display. If so, it's an association that goes on hiatus for half the campaign, and even if that positive association supposedly did exist, why did it not go on display after the end of the campaign? If the magistrate was really meant to be some buddy of Raynor's, the game's format of delivery, as limited as it was, didn't prohibit that.

Really, I could throw in a fourth option and say the Magistrate has a deathwish and is suicidal. That would fit his actions, too. Would that be easier to for you to naturally assume that this (the magistrate being somewhat mentally disturbed) is the case?

Not easily, but possibly, in as much that it can explain his absence.

If there really was nothing we can infer about the Magistrate, this could be an equally acceptable reason for his actions, too. I wonder how many people would agree with that assessment compared to the "Raynor and Magistrate were friendly to each other" assessment.

And it's an assessment I'd have less problems with if it wasn't for Raynor's line (more on that later) and that the magistrate is never seen/heard from again afterwards. So either the magistrate didn't stick around (as opposed to people like Horner), didn't keep in touch (as opposed to people like Liberty), or is dead, but still too minor to care about. The beef I have with this "great friendship" assumption and treating it as "true" is that it requires willful ignorance of everything post-RY to function.

Oh, Raynor's just angry in that moment about Kerrigan being lost....

Um, is that even in doubt?

I mean, if that's an acceptable excuse to explain away Raynor's outburst in BW about cutting his ties with Kerrigan to have him later just change his mind about her behind the scenes, I can't see why this excuse can't be used here. If I may sidebar, really, there was no real sign that Raynor showed any romantic feelings toward Kerrigan either (beyond wanting to bang a hot-looking chick - a thought that naturally crosses every average heterosexual males mind beyond count), yet I'm sure many people still infer it and more, accept it as being there all the time. This is no different.

As tempting as it is to show why the BW moment was nothing more than a moment and we have 2 (3 in the N64 version) campaigns worth of evidence for that relationship to exist, there's a difference. Raynor, and Kerrigan, interacted with each other. Raynor and the magistrate did not. The friendship-romance between Raynor and Kerrigan was on display the entire time. To claim that this kind of thing existed between the magistrate and Raynor requires creative license, as again, no dialogue. Or anything else.

We also have to take into account Raynor's full speech. He qualifies the "you better come with me" with the following line: "there's no tellin' who Arcturus'll screw over next". Why would Raynor bother even saying that if not for some concern over others? If Raynor didn't care about the Magistrate he would have scarpered by himself without telling him. There's no indication that Raynor can't muster up enough manpower on his own nor is there evidence that he requires validation (his mind seems pretty made up to me at that point) - they're just further speculation that one has to come up with out of the blue to further explain him somehow not being friendly to the Magistrate (which is hard to believe given Raynor's general nature towards those he doesn't have a beef with).

If Raynor was worried about the magistrate's safety, why not say something along the lines of "there's no tellin' when Arcturus will screw you over as well." The line as it exists though, is vague, general - I'd say it stems more from reflection that Kerrigan's just been screwed over, but that aside, there's nothing to suggest it's directed at the magistrate himself. And manpower...even leaving EU out of this, the mission by itself that follows show the Raiders being outnumbered.

And the validation. Okay, let's leave that aside. But this whole "great friendship" thing still means bending over backwards to re-interpret that line, and has to generate a reason for the magistrate's absence from this point onwards.

But look, let's make this easy. If people want to say there's this friendship, fine. But here's the problems I have with it:

-Every interaction up to mission 5 is either Raynor telling the magistrate what to do, or delivering what is a form of exposition.

-The interaction stops for the next half of the campaign - if a friendship was meant to exist, why wasn't it nurtured over this period?

-By mission 10, we've returned to form of Raynor ordering the magistrate what to do.

-The magistrate is never seen or mentioned again. Instead, Raynor's interactions are based with Kerrigan (love/hate) or the protoss (friendship). Again, if this friendship existed, why not show it? It's telling that the only other time the magistrate's ever been mentioned since is in Heroes of the Storm.

So no. The only thing I can say for sure is that the magistrate saw Mengsk as a better alternative to...well, dying, on Mar Sara, and saw leaving Mengsk at Tarsonis as the best course of action. And to claim there is a friendship, it has to account for the lack of communication/presence that occurs both during SC1, and after. And even playing the death card isn't enough to cover the first facet of that issue.

[Turalyon]

I didn't miss the point, I was making the point that "all the way to the end" is academic.

Look, you're saying it's unreasonable for us to infer some sort of moral leaning of the Magistrate when I've given you something in which someone can reasonably infer such a thing. There is no reason for the magistrate to stick with Raynor after all that time unless he shares some of his views since at the end, Raynor visibly paints a target for himself/puts himself on the outer by taking a moral stand and. If this (that the magistrate was somewhat good/shares some of Raynor's views) was not the case, no neutral person would ever side with Raynor unless they were insane and wanted to die (in such a situation, there's no guarantee that Raynor could actually escape). This is not even taking into account that Magistrate sticks by him at the start when they were not that even well acquainted (see below). All of which goes to show that the Magistrate has to be decent at some level.

Well, he did it before at Backwater. It's already established that Raynor can, for whatever reason, get the magistrate to do what he wants. No, I don't think that makes Raynor a bad person (Backwater is based on altruism), but if Raynor can convince the magistrate to defy the status quo once through a single demand, then it stands to reason that he can get him to do it again when he's in the mood he is. It comes off to me less the magistrate being someone who's a morally upstanding individual and more like someone who's willing to go with the flow and let himself be dictated to.

I can understand the Magistrate listening to Raynor's advice given that he is a native to Mar Sara and the Marshal of the area that the Magistrate was assigned to but where is it established that Raynor twists the Magistrates arm, bullies him or forces him to do anything in Backwater Station? Seems like a bit of confirmation bias on your part. And to think Nissa got flamed for reading too much into things...

Even if this is so, are we also expected to believe that Raynor also forced or bullied the Magistrate into sending the SoK into rescuing him from the Confeds before he got captured? That's the only explanation if we are to assume no positive association between Raynor and the Magistrate and that the Magistrate is not morally decent at some level. Or are we to pile on more speculation and say the SoK are doing this because they know Raynor is such an important person (God knows how one can explain that given that Raynor is still a "nobody at this point) or that they'd love to waste resources/men attacking a Confed prison ship (a ship that also happened to contain Raynor, mind you) because the SoK are really good people?

If so, it's an association that goes on hiatus for half the campaign

That's unreasonable. There is barely anything that hints at a romantic relationship between Raynor and Kerrigan, yet people take what little there is (which is still debatable in itself) as gospel. If we can't take even near half the campaign of this association as meaning something, I don't know how the romance thing (for the record, I don't actually mind the idea/theory behind it) can be accepted.

and even if that positive association supposedly did exist, why did it not go on display after the end of the campaign?

Um, because the Terran campaign ended and we don't get to see their point of view anymore? What little we see of Raynor doesn't dismiss that a positive association existed because we don't see the Magistrate. This is not proof (it's confirmation bias if you do claim it though) that they were definitely never friends. One can speculate many reasons why the Magistrate wasn't seen or mentioned in these later scenarios involving Raynor, least of which is that he could have died sometime after the end of the Terran campaign and that Raynor doesn't want to talk about it (it happened to Fenix afterall).

And it's an assessment I'd have less problems with if it wasn't for Raynor's line (more on that later) and that the magistrate is never seen/heard from again afterwards. So either the magistrate didn't stick around (as opposed to people like Horner), didn't keep in touch (as opposed to people like Liberty), or is dead, but still too minor to care about. The beef I have with this "great friendship" assumption and treating it as "true" is that it requires willful ignorance of everything post-RY to function.

See above. Fenix and Raynor had an even greater friendship but Raynor never commented on his passing afterwards. It took an out-of universe reason to make that possible and when that event did happen, it already felt contrived and fake. Besides, I'm not claiming there was a "great friendship" just the notion that the magistrate and the Raynor had some sort of positive association (one can still call this general friendship if one wanted to) - the same notion that Nissa expressed in not so many words. A notion that you are vehemently against of being likely at all.

Also, just because we never see the magistrate or hear from him ever again could mean absolutely anything - including that he's still there. You know how the saying goes regarding absence of evidence... The Magistrate could very well still be there commanding Raynor's forces whilst Raynor is just the "mouthpiece" we hear in those later encounters - which is pretty much what happens in the campaign of Rebel Yell. Raynor never mentions the Magistrate during actual missions (only in briefings) so why would he start doing so now in the later encounters? I can invent just as many reasons as to why the Magistrate is still with Raynor in contrast to why he isn't but at the end of there's no way to be sure.

Um, is that even in doubt?

No. I was just making a point that because he was seemingly curt with the Magistrate at this one instance (for a reason that is not related to how he might feel toward the Magistrate) doesn't mean he's always had a non-positive association with the Magistrate previously or forever more.

As tempting as it is to show why the BW moment was nothing more than a moment

I would like to see you try without going outside of BW to explain it. It is the last moment we see of Raynor and the end of his character arc. In most stories, such moments are usually quite significant.

The friendship-romance between Raynor and Kerrigan was on display the entire time. To claim that this kind of thing existed between the magistrate and Raynor requires creative license, as again, no dialogue. Or anything else.

I'm speaking specifically talking about an unbreakable romance between Kerrigan and Raynor, not just a general relationship of any sort. There is a difference between those two things. The point of contention with Raynor and the Magistrate is specifically whether a positive relationship exists or whether there is none at all (ie: the Magistrate is just hanging with Raynor the whole entire time just because he wants to). Like the above example, there is a difference between those two things.

If Raynor was worried about the magistrate's safety, why not say something along the lines of "there's no tellin' when Arcturus will screw you over as well."

You haven't addressed why he'd bother saying that all if he didn't care for the Magistrate at all. Raynor would just leave without telling the Magistrate anything if there was nothing between them. Besides, if Raynor was bullish he'd be giving the magistrate an ultimatum instead, not a warning.

But this whole "great friendship"

I have no idea where you're getting this notion from. Nothing I've said ever referred to their relationship as being "great". I have been at "great" pains to explain it as some form of positive relationship at all times though. Feels like I'm falling on deaf ears though....

The only thing I can say for sure is that the magistrate saw Mengsk as a better alternative to...well, dying, on Mar Sara

This has nothing to do with the SoK rescuing Raynor - which they probably wouldn't even have known or cared if not for the Magistrate telling them.

and saw leaving Mengsk at Tarsonis as the best course of action.

... because the Magistrate is insane since he has no positive association or relationship with Raynor nor is he potentially more on the morally good side of things. This is the only logical conclusion you could make with your stance.

[Hawki]

Look, you're saying it's unreasonable for us to infer some sort of moral leaning of the Magistrate when I've given you something in which someone can reasonably infer such a thing.

I haven't said it's unreasonable, only that I think it's a bit much to say it's a concrete fact.

I can understand the Magistrate listening to Raynor's advice given that he is a native to Mar Sara and the Marshal of the area that the Magistrate was assigned to but where is it established that Raynor twists the Magistrates arm, bullies him or forces him to do anything in Backwater Station?

Look at the quote - when did I use the term "bullied?" I said that, for whatever reason, Raynor is able to get the magistrate to acquiesce to his request. If you want to say it's friendship, fine. But again, I think it's a bit much to say that this is hard and fast evidence for it.

are we also expected to believe that Raynor also forced or bullied the Magistrate into sending the SoK into rescuing him from the Confeds before he got captured? That's the only explanation if we are to assume no positive association between Raynor and the Magistrate and that the Magistrate is not morally decent at some level. Or are we to pile on more speculation and say the SoK are doing this because they know Raynor is such an important person (God knows how one can explain that given that Raynor is still a "nobody at this point) or that they'd love to waste resources/men attacking a Confed prison ship (a ship that also happened to contain Raynor, mind you) because the SoK are really good people?

Few things:

-We know for a fact that it's Michael Liberty who tipped the SoK off to the ship.

-There's nothing in the game to suggest the magistrate was the one who gave the info anyway.

-The SoK don't need an excuse to attack a Confed target, not to mention that by doing so, they're also recruiting other MSF forces.

Again, if this was the evidence for friendship, fine. But I think it's really stringing a series of events together to reach a conclusion.

That's unreasonable. There is barely anything that hints at a romantic relationship between Raynor and Kerrigan, yet people take what little there is (which is still debatable in itself) as gospel. If we can't take even near half the campaign of this association as meaning something, I don't know how the romance thing (for the record, I don't actually mind the idea/theory behind it) can be accepted.

Here's the difference - Raynor meets Kerrigan in mission 5, so absence prior to that point is explained, not to mention the evidence extends beyond Rebel Yell by itself. There's less of an excuse for the interaction between Raynor and the magistrate to stop during this period.

the same notion that Nissa expressed in not so many words. A notion that you are vehemently against of being likely at all.

Again, not the notion, only the claim that it's a "fact," which is what Nissa's starting point was.

I would like to see you try without going outside of BW to explain it. It is the last moment we see of Raynor and the end of his character arc. In most stories, such moments are usually quite significant.

Okay, here's the reasons why I never saw the moment as significant.

The mission follows a narrative pattern. Fenix dies, Raynor reacts. Duke dies, Mengsk reacts. The order of these events are player-determinant, and whatever moment they're played in, Kerrigan still gets the last word. The pattern goes as follows:

-Deceased: Blaze of glory.
-Mourner: Low point.
-Kerrigan: High point (the inevitable ending)

Both Mengsk and Raynor mourn the fact that they've been duped, lost an ally/friend, and that there's nothing they can do to strike back. This isn't some character development moment, at least, not in a positive sense. The moments show themselves at their lowest. Raynor lashing out against Kerrigan and declaring that he'll kill her (hence the third juror analogy) is part of this - a claim of which he has no chance of backing up.

So, cut to the end of the game, where Raynor doesn't even turn up at Char Aleph, a golden opportunity to put his "vow" into practice. Contrary to your claim, this isn't the last we hear of Raynor, it's the line at the end, the notion of going his separate way. This doesn't speak to me of a man who has much of a purpose - not when it's contrasted to people having a clear objective (e.g. Mengsk and Artanis). That, and even confining things just to game material, we see Raynor in Resurrection IV next, where revenge is never even mentioned.

So no. I never saw it as significant. I saw it as showing Raynor at his lowest moment, being left with nothing, and per the ending, no direction. And even if I ever did see it as a vow, I wouldn't have had an issue with WoL anyway. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen the theme of abandoning revenge be used.

You haven't addressed why he'd bother saying that all if he didn't care for the Magistrate at all. Raynor would just leave without telling the Magistrate anything if there was nothing between them. Besides, if Raynor was bullish he'd be giving the magistrate an ultimatum instead, not a warning.

I've stated why numerous times, but to re-iterate:

-From a writing standpoint, it's a way of showing Raynor's mindset without descending into monologue.

-From a character standpoint, see manpower/validation points.

-If you say it's a warning, fine. I really can't be bothered to argue anymore. All I can say is that it's the most passive-aggressive "warning" I've ever seen.

I have no idea where you're getting this notion from. Nothing I've said ever referred to their relationship as being "great".

Hyperbole.

I have been at "great" pains to explain it as some form of positive relationship at all times though.

I know that. And I'm sorry, but nothing I played, or have read here, has given me reason to believe the same. Not unless I use creative interpretation.

Feels like I'm falling on deaf ears though....

I know the feeling...

This has nothing to do with the SoK rescuing Raynor - which they probably wouldn't even have known or cared if not for the Magistrate telling them.

See above. Again, even by the game itself, I saw no reason to believe the magistrate had tipped them off.

... because the Magistrate is insane since he has no positive association or relationship with Raynor nor is he potentially more on the morally good side of things. This is the only logical conclusion you could make with your stance.

What stance? In the very quote, I was only listing the fact that the magistrate leaves at Tarsonis. The stance I've taken is that it's dubious to claim that it's a solid fact that a friendship existed, whereas yours is that friendship is the only reason those actions could have occurred.

Look, this has got rediculous. You keep claiming that my stance is that there is no friendship. My stance isn't that there is no friendship, period, only that there isn't enough evidence to make it definitive. In essence, it's the equivalent of your Kerrigan-Raynor stance, that the events could be interpreted to form the conclusion, but not definitive in itself. I'm happy to leave it at that. To reiterate, here's how it all began:

Dude, you can't do that to the magistrate. He's a cool guy, and Raynor's BFF.

Why? The magistrate has no personality, so it's my perogative to give him whatever personality I like.

There. That's how it began. I never said that they couldn't be friends by that statement, I could have easily made them BFFs if I wanted to. I chose not to, and felt I was allowed to, because I didn't (and don't) think that there was anything definitive to establish the personality as definatively existing.

[Turalyon]

I haven't said it's unreasonable, only that I think it's a bit much to say it's a concrete fact.

Could've fooled me. I've never stated that them having any positive relationship is concrete fact either. It's why I keep saying that it is inferrable.

Look at the quote - when did I use the term "bullied?" I said that, for whatever reason, Raynor is able to get the magistrate to acquiesce to his request. If you want to say it's friendship, fine. But again, I think it's a bit much to say that this is hard and fast evidence for it.

The third option you decided to take has Raynor "demanding" the Magistrate to do what he says - just like when you said he "demands" and orders the Magistrate around in the earlier missions.

We know for a fact that it's Michael Liberty who tipped the SoK off to the ship.

The game never states this. I'm only drawing inferences from what the game gives me only.

There's nothing in the game to suggest the magistrate was the one who gave the info anyway.

Oh, come on that's an arguement from ignorance. Occam's razor will lead you to that answer. Who else could it possibly be if you even had to guess with what information you had available? Hmm, I think an omnisicent bright pink elephant that can teleport and talk would be a reasonable answer too because it's never stated explicitly either.

The SoK don't need an excuse to attack a Confed target, not to mention that by doing so, they're also recruiting other MSF forces.

A ship that so happens to contain the nobody that is Raynor - a person who no-one would care about at this time, except, oh maybe the Magistrate who saw Raynor get captured and was still Confed official up until he gets rescued by the Sok and probably had access (as he still gets Confed reports from his adjutant/advisor) to which exact prison ship Raynor may have been on. But oh no, the Magistrate doesn't care about Raynor so I guess the SoK are omniscient then.

Here's the difference - Raynor meets Kerrigan in mission 5, so absence prior to that point is explained, not to mention the evidence extends beyond Rebel Yell by itself. There's less of an excuse for the interaction between Raynor and the magistrate to stop during this period.

Given that you also advocate that certain dialogue/interactions between characters can have no significant long-term meaning based on a whim, I can't see why the Kerrigan-Raynor interactions in Rebel Yell can't be interpreted as nothing more than camaraderie. There's no real evidence of an ever-lasting romance unless you infer it - which is fine, because I'm advocating that you can also infer a non-specific positive relationship between Raynor and the Magistrate.

This isn't some character development moment, at least, not in a positive sense.

Not all character development is or has to be positive.

The moments show themselves at their lowest. Raynor lashing out against Kerrigan and declaring that he'll kill her (hence the third juror analogy) is part of this - a claim of which he has no chance of backing up.

So, cut to the end of the game, where Raynor doesn't even turn up at Char Aleph, a golden opportunity to put his "vow" into practice. Contrary to your claim, this isn't the last we hear of Raynor, it's the line at the end, the notion of going his separate way. This doesn't speak to me of a man who has much of a purpose - not when it's contrasted to people having a clear objective (e.g. Mengsk and Artanis).

Aren't you the one claiming we can't ascertain character traits from action/inactions that we perceive? And yet here you are doing it right now.

From a writing standpoint, it's a way of showing Raynor's mindset without descending into monologue.

-From a character standpoint, see manpower/validation points.

-If you say it's a warning, fine. I really can't be bothered to argue anymore. All I can say is that it's the most passive-aggressive "warning" I've ever seen.

We have to leave out-of-universe explanations out of it since that's a catch-all reason for anything that happens at all. What I call narrative/author convenience". I'm more interested in treating it as if it was a real-life scenario and finding possible reasons for why a person would do this or that.

You didn't seem to counter my reply to your manpower/validation points adequately. Why would the Magistrate ever think of joining with Raynor if there's no relationship between the two? Raynor is in no real position to bully/threaten/cajole the Magistrate onto his side if the Magistrate were to assess the situation neutrally - which he must because there's no relationship between the two. In such a situation, it would be insane to join Raynor unless there was some other reason (ie: there was some positive relationship between the two and/or that the magistrate is somewhat morally decent/shares similar views to Raynor - both of which you deny).

You seem to be misplacing Raynor's ferment about the recent situation with Mengsk and applying it incorrectly to his interaction with the Magistrate. The way he speaks to the Magistrate isn't because he doesn't care about him, it's because he's still upset losing Kerrigan and having the revelation of Mengsk of being tyrant shoved in his face. That's the point I was making in my reply.

Hyperbole.

Yes, I know you're using this to misrepresent my position. What about it?

What stance? In the very quote, I was only listing the fact that the magistrate leaves at Tarsonis. The stance I've taken is that it's dubious to claim that it's a solid fact that a friendship existed, whereas yours is that friendship is the only reason those actions could have occurred.

I'm following your position to it's logical endpoint: if there is no evidence that a friendship/relationship existed, there must be none and if there is no evidence that the magistrate is on the morally good side of things, he must be morally indifferent at the least. As such, in-universe, the Magistrate has no reason to stick around or side with Raynor at all. But, given the Magistrate's unexplained propensity to stick around, he must surely be insane - which somehow fits even less comfortable than if Raynor and the Magistrate were friends at some level. Lastly, the only reason that will be left to explain this then is the out-of-universe explanation of "author/narrative convenience" and that's a bad reason to be left with due to the break in immersion and verisimilitude of the universe created (there's nothing worse than feeling something is contrived in a fictional work).

I know that. And I'm sorry, but nothing I played, or have read here, has given me reason to believe the same. Not unless I use creative interpretation.

Look, this has got rediculous. You keep claiming that my stance is that there is no friendship. My stance isn't that there is no friendship, period, only that there isn't enough evidence to make it definitive. In essence, it's the equivalent of your Kerrigan-Raynor stance, that the events could be interpreted to form the conclusion, but not definitive in itself. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Look, that's fine. I'm not doing this to change your mind (that's for you and everyone else to decide on their own) or to butt heads but to make you understand why others may feel it. And yes, it does need some creative interpretation at some level - hence I keep saying words that contain the root "infer". I'm also happy to leave it if you're getting tired of it. I don't mind either way - I enjoyed the conversation for what it was worth.