Kerrigan should hate the Confederacy more

[Turalyon]

It's irrelevant because:
1) She should still hate the Confederacy more. You're all trying to convince me that it's reasonable for her to hate Mengsk, but I never disagreed with that.

I'm a little confused. Did you expect Kerrigan to hate the Confeds more than Mengsk at a time before she was infested? One has reason to say no because she didn't want to release Zerg on them as opposed to Mengsk. Shouldn't you then be unhappy that she is hesitant to unleash the Zerg back then (because she had greater cause as you've pointed out) rather than her choice of using the Zerg on Mengsk later?

Also, I'm not sure whether or not you're denying that someone can't change their minds after time and certain events occurring and/or that they can't experience cognitive dissonance.

2) Her character development still doesn't support the fact that she would hate Mengsk more than the Confederates. The Queen of Blades left Mengsk alive just to toy with him, but when Kerrigan got her humanity back she had nightmares about being the QoB, and it doesn't make sense that she'd turn into a mass murdering monster just because her boyfriend died.

I maybe wrong but there seems to be a recency effect going on here. Who's to say that her actions in BW and HotS against Mengsk is actual proof that she hates Mengsk more than the Confeds?

The possibility exists that she actually does hate the Confeds more but due to them being already destroyed by Mengsk (with her help as well), has no reason to say or do anything more about it. Realy, what point is there for to keep expressing such an opinion (assuming she holds it), when the Confeds are no longer narratively relevent? As such, her prolonged attack on Mengsk is because (along with the betrayal and kill attempt in WoL) he's the currently relevant target/threat at that point in her life. There's probably a fair amount of projection going on there, too. Her seemingly unreasonably strong hate towards Mengsk could also be because she hates the Confeds and she's transplanting that hate onto Mengsk after he showed her his true nature.

If you all want to argue that she's now an unreasonable sociopath and so messed up that we can't expect any consistent or believable character development on her part, then that's acceptable too.

I've always contended that she was an unreasonable sociopath and messed up from the get go. She's always been somewhat naive and a morally inconsistent individual when she was human. She can justify personally conducting multiple assasination orders for supposed small gains even after Mengsk rescues her but somehow can't justify killing a lot more people for a supposed larger gain. This is especially pertinent if one is to hold that she hates the Confeds above anything else since the "larger gain" is the final destruction the Confeds. Also, we have to question the conviction of her statement regarding not unleashing the Zerg on entire planets when she nonetheless sticks by Mengsk's orders regardless in blatant contradiction of her beliefs! This could indicate that despite her beliefs, she is actually Ok with it due to her possibly having an even stronger belief of fulfilling one's duty was more important/rewarding (which actually turns out wrong) than her morality or that she does hate the Confederacy enough to let it slide...

As to her actions being inconsistent and unbelievable, I'm going to disagree only because Kerrigan is so messed up that her actions are consistent and believable for that character only. In BW, she doesn't necessarily have to deal out such cruel mercy but she does so anyway due to some perceived previous slight against her. If the "infestation" was responsible for her "evilness", it would just have made her kill Mengsk and Zeratul on the spot instead - it's how proper Zerg would deal with that situation. Funnily enough, I actually find her more overtly consistent (cos she's got a screw loose up there) than I do Raynor's representation in WoL because the only reason I can come up with to explain all of Raynor's actions as being consistent up to this point is because he's an unwitting deathseeker (a different type of "loose screw") - which is quite a stretch to believe considering how the character is typically presented.

It's pretty much to the point if you want to enjoy Starcraft as a story, the EU is practically a reading requirement.

I wouldn't say that. I enjoyed both Sc1 and BW without the EU and feel that the EU is part of the reason why I don't enjoy it as much now. To each their own.

The Confederates are gone, but if they were still around in HoTS, I think she'd have attacked them instead of Mengsk. Her actions in HoTS are way out of character IMO.

Aside from the hypothetical of the Confeds being a relevant and separate entity that still existed and had some power, I'm failing to see the problem since this is clearly not what we have here. Because the Confeds are NOT there anymore, Kerrigan is justified in her hate towards Mengsk in HotS. We can't really use that as conclusive evidence that she hated Mengsk more than the Confeds though.

[Gradius]

I'm a little confused. Did you expect Kerrigan to hate the Confeds more than Mengsk at a time before she was infested? One has reason to say no because she didn't want to release Zerg on them as opposed to Mengsk. Shouldn't you then be unhappy that she is hesitant to unleash the Zerg back then (because she had greater cause as you've pointed out) rather than her choice of using the Zerg on Mengsk later?

I am happy that she didn't want to use zerg against the Confederates back then. I'm unhappy that she destroyed multiple planets in HoTS to get revenge against a guy that ostensibly did far less to her than the same Confederates that she showed mercy to.

Also, I'm not sure whether or not you're denying that someone can't change their minds after time and certain events occurring and/or that they can't experience cognitive dissonance.

Why would Kerrigan change her mind about using zerg against other human beings? There's no evidence to support this. She specifically gives order to spare terrans multiple times in HoTS because she's not in the same Queen of Blades mindset as before. And even if she were in that mindset, the Queen of Blades never showed interest in getting revenge against Mengsk.

I maybe wrong but there seems to be a recency effect going on here. Who's to say that her actions in BW and HotS against Mengsk is actual proof that she hates Mengsk more than the Confeds?

The possibility exists that she actually does hate the Confeds more but due to them being already destroyed by Mengsk (with her help as well), has no reason to say or do anything more about it. Realy, what point is there for to keep expressing such an opinion (assuming she holds it), when the Confeds are no longer narratively relevent? As such, her prolonged attack on Mengsk is because (along with the betrayal and kill attempt in WoL) he's the currently relevant target/threat at that point in her life. There's probably a fair amount of projection going on there, too. Her seemingly unreasonably strong hate towards Mengsk could also be because she hates the Confeds and she's transplanting that hate onto Mengsk after he showed her his true nature.

"I just don't think anyone deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them." - Kerrigan's opinion on Confederates
"The killing won't stop until Mengsk is dead." - Kerrigan's opinion on Mengsk

I think it's clear who she hates more. Why would she transplant her hate of the Confederates to Mengsk? And even if she did, is that still good enough of a reason to go back on her morals and unleash zerg on the entire sector (the same crime that made Mengsk so heinous in SC1). I mean, the entire reason Kerrigan was betrayed is because of this one conviction. It's core to her story.

I've always contended that she was an unreasonable sociopath and messed up from the get go. She's always been somewhat naive and a morally inconsistent individual when she was human. She can justify personally conducting multiple assasination orders for supposed small gains even after Mengsk rescues her but somehow can't justify killing a lot more people for a supposed larger gain.

Eh? Not wanting to unleash Zerg against other human beings doesn't make her a sociopath. That makes her a sane well adjusted human being. Small-scale warfare that avoids civilians as collateral damage isn't the same thing.

The only thing inconsistent about her is agreeing to help fight the protoss under the naive assumption that "once we deal with the protoss we can do something about the zerg. Arcturus will come around. I know he will."

This is especially pertinent if one is to hold that she hates the Confeds above anything else since the "larger gain" is the final destruction the Confeds.

The core corrupt government, not random civilians. A revolutionary is not necessarily a mass murderer.

Also, we have to question the conviction of her statement regarding not unleashing the Zerg on entire planets when she nonetheless sticks by Mengsk's orders regardless in blatant contradiction of her beliefs! This could indicate that despite her beliefs, she is actually Ok with it due to her possibly having an even stronger belief of fulfilling one's duty was more important/rewarding (which actually turns out wrong) than her morality or that she does hate the Confederacy enough to let it slide...

Again, the worst thing you can say about her is that she's naive. She operated under the assumption that the zerg would be dealt with. Raynor already alluded to the fact that she feels like she owes Mengsk too much.

As to her actions being inconsistent and unbelievable, I'm going to disagree only because Kerrigan is so messed up that her actions are consistent and believable for that character only. In BW, she doesn't necessarily have to deal out such cruel mercy but she does so anyway due to some perceived previous slight against her. If the "infestation" was responsible for her "evilness", it would just have made her kill Mengsk and Zeratul on the spot instead - it's how proper Zerg would deal with that situation. Funnily enough, I actually find her more overtly consistent (cos she's got a screw loose up there) than I do Raynor's representation in WoL because the only reason I can come up with to explain all of Raynor's actions as being consistent up to this point is because he's an unwitting deathseeker (a different type of "loose screw") - which is quite a stretch to believe considering how the character is typically presented.

Infested Kerrigan purposefully left Mengsk alive during BW. In WoL, Infested Kerrigan invaded the sector to find artifacts, not to get revenge on Mengsk. Brian Kindregan said in his lore Q&As that the Queen of Blades is not that interested in getting revenge against Mengsk. Being unnecessarily cruel to her enemies is not the same as being inconsistent.

Aside from the hypothetical of the Confeds being a relevant and separate entity that still existed and had some power, I'm failing to see the problem since this is clearly not what we have here. Because the Confeds are NOT there anymore, Kerrigan is justified in her hate towards Mengsk in HotS. We can't really use that as conclusive evidence that she hated Mengsk more than the Confeds though.

Yes, but Mengsk IS there and Kerrigan shouldn't have gone to such extreme lengths to have him eliminated. She never has before (against the Confederates, against Mengsk in BW where she left him alive, etc). Realistically, her goal should have been assassination, not warfare.

[TheProgramer]

"I just don't think anyone deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them."
- Human Sarah Kerrigan in response to using Zerg on the Confederate strike force sent to kill them all

Not to mention it was the confederates who developed the PSI Emitter technology in the first place!

[Nissa]

"I just don't think anyone deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them." - Kerrigan's opinion on Confederates
"The killing won't stop until Mengsk is dead." - Kerrigan's opinion on Mengsk

I think it's clear who she hates more. Why would she transplant her hate of the Confederates to Mengsk? And even if she did, is that still good enough of a reason to go back on her morals and unleash zerg on the entire sector (the same crime that made Mengsk so heinous in SC1). I mean, the entire reason Kerrigan was betrayed is because of this one conviction. It's core to her story.

Ah, logic error detected. First of all, I do agree that Kerrigan's actions in HotS were laughably out of character. She'd already gotten revenge on Mengsk by that point (see: BW) and Amon is supposedly worse than him, so she should really be preparing to fight mystery voice dude. However, I have a couple of problems with the problem as you state it.

1. Are you really sure Kerrigan is transferring her hate of the Confederacy on Mengsk? The way HotS was presented, it felt more like she was persecuting him not only for what he did to her, but for what he was continually doing to the sector as a whole -- he was continuing to be the sort of person who killed for his own purposes ("the killing won't stop until Mengsk is dead") and he "killed" her bf. Accepting HotS on its own terms, it's pretty apparent that her actions were a compilation of both past and present motivations, as well as a sort of "healing journey" for Kerrigan herself. That is, she killed the person who threw her away to the Zerg as a way of moving on with her life. The Confederacy had nothing to do with anything.

2. Your usage of game quotes is irrelevant. It assumes that (a) non-infested Kerrigan is the same as infested Kerrigan, and (b) Kerrigan hasn't at all changed in her years of being a Zerg and going through several emotional events. Pre-infested Kerrigan said what she said because she was still innocent enough to have a proper moral base. Everything infested Kerrigan has ever done has been based on her own emotional needs, not morality. Thus, her old quote doesn't really relate to modern actions.

Besides, everything about Kerri indicates that if the Confederacy were still around, she'd treat them just as badly as she does Mengsk.

[Shadow Archon]

I wouldn't say that. I enjoyed both Sc1 and BW without the EU and feel that the EU is part of the reason why I don't enjoy it as much now. To each their own.

Ah, but the EU didn't exist when both of those games came out. They stood alone in the continuity.

Starcraft 2 didn't. A decade's worth of EU materials came out before it, with many of them directly building up the events to Starcraft 2.

Introducing Valerian Mengsk, introducing Selendis, introducing Tychus, introducing Horner, introducing the Tal'Darim, introducing Nova, introducing the Xel'naga life cycle, showing the expansion of scale, going into Raynor's and Sarah's love story in depth, showing Narud is working with the Dominion, and so on.

I feel the reason people don't really like the SC2 story is because the EU is not just a supplement of the lore as it should be, but rather has become a necessary part to enjoy SC2 at all. It gives everything a proper build-up rather than ending up with a story that has elements that are "This happens. Just because."

Add the entire retcon "The Terrans only have 13 worlds" to "A single Old Family can own 13 worlds" expansion of scale, and well, there's a disconnect.

The Dominion seems like it hasn't suffered any damage from the UED...not because the writers ignored it, but because that the Dominion even in the original Starcraft at its height is weaker than the Dominion in Starcraft 2 because they've retconned the size of Terran Space.

[Gradius]

Ah, logic error detected. First of all, I do agree that Kerrigan's actions in HotS were laughably out of character. She'd already gotten revenge on Mengsk by that point (see: BW) and Amon is supposedly worse than him, so she should really be preparing to fight mystery voice dude. However, I have a couple of problems with the problem as you state it.

There's no logic error. It still doesn't sound like you understand my argument. For example:

1. Are you really sure Kerrigan is transferring her hate of the Confederacy on Mengsk? The way HotS was presented, it felt more like she was persecuting him not only for what he did to her, but for what he was continually doing to the sector as a whole -- he was continuing to be the sort of person who killed for his own purposes ("the killing won't stop until Mengsk is dead") and he "killed" her bf. Accepting HotS on its own terms, it's pretty apparent that her actions were a compilation of both past and present motivations, as well as a sort of "healing journey" for Kerrigan herself. That is, she killed the person who threw her away to the Zerg as a way of moving on with her life. The Confederacy had nothing to do with anything.

I never said this. Turalyon is the one who implied she's transferring her hate of the Confeds to Mengsk because the Confeds are gone and Mengsk is still alive.

2. Your usage of game quotes is irrelevant. It assumes that (a) non-infested Kerrigan is the same as infested Kerrigan, and (b) Kerrigan hasn't at all changed in her years of being a Zerg and going through several emotional events. Pre-infested Kerrigan said what she said because she was still innocent enough to have a proper moral base. Everything infested Kerrigan has ever done has been based on her own emotional needs, not morality. Thus, her old quote doesn't really relate to modern actions.

Besides, everything about Kerri indicates that if the Confederacy were still around, she'd treat them just as badly as she does Mengsk.

Except there's no evidence for this. Again:

"Infested Kerrigan purposefully left Mengsk alive during BW. In WoL, Infested Kerrigan invaded the sector to find artifacts, not to get revenge on Mengsk. Brian Kindregan said in his lore Q&As that the Queen of Blades is not that interested in getting revenge against Mengsk."

She didn't condone mass murdering planets with zerg as human, and she had no interest in doing so as an infested terran. So just because she changed over 4 years doesn't mean her actions in HoTS make any sense.

Pre-infested Kerrigan said what she said because she was still innocent enough to have a proper moral base.

It's too bad that the game implies this is still (somewhat) the case. Ends human experimentation. Saves Warfield's troops. Saves civilians on Korhal. The idea that she's basing all her actions off her emotions is totally bunk when you have multiple examples of her making moral decisions that are in line with her old humanity.

[Nissa]

I never said this. Turalyon is the one who implied she's transferring her hate of the Confeds to Mengsk because the Confeds are gone and Mengsk is still alive.

Uh, what I fail to understand is why the Confederacy matters at all. Why bother bringing them up, if Kerrigan's motivations really are the thing at question? They were a moot point by the time she became Zerg.

Except there's no evidence for this.

Evidence? You need evidence someone changes over four years when they go through extreme life changes and emotional events? You need evidence that becoming genetically related to a murderous race makes a person less innocent? This isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of sense. The idea that her character would remain static over time, even if she returned to being human and lost her memories, makes no sense whatsoever.

For your point to make sense, you have to prove that Kerrigan's (incomplete) return to humanity in WoL was a complete reset that erased her Zerg years entirely as though they never were.

When emotional things happen to a person, they change that person's chemical makeup in their minds -- thinking depressing thoughts leads to depression, etc. Whether or not Kerrigan remembered how she used to be as Zerg, the beliefs she had about herself, Mengsk, and everyone else would have made a chemical impression in her mind. That impression isn't going to vanish simply due to memory loss. Thus, the depression, anger, pleasure of dominance, and cruelty she experienced during that time are going to be issues for her, even as a human.

Again:

"Infested Kerrigan purposefully left Mengsk alive during BW. In WoL, Infested Kerrigan invaded the sector to find artifacts, not to get revenge on Mengsk. Brian Kindregan said in his lore Q&As that the Queen of Blades is not that interested in getting revenge against Mengsk."

She didn't condone mass murdering planets with zerg as human, and she had no interest in doing so as an infested terran. So just because she changed over 4 years doesn't mean her actions in HoTS make any sense.

Oh, trust me, I'm not arguing that her actions made sense in HotS. Kerrigan got her revenge during BW, and clearly revenge wasn't on her mind in WoL, and then Amon showed up. Those are the reasons why her actions in HotS make no sense, not because of one quote she made years ago when she was an entirely different person.

...She had no interest in mass murdering planets as an infested Terran? Kerrigan decimated UED forces on Korhal, under the pretense of helping Mengsk get it back. Plus, she had to go on a massive resource run just to do that. Infested Kerrigan would do whatever she had the resources to do, had she sufficient motivation.

It's too bad that the game implies this is still (somewhat) the case. Ends human experimentation. Saves Warfield's troops. Saves civilians on Korhal. The idea that she's basing all her actions off her emotions is totally bunk when you have multiple examples of her making moral decisions that are in line with her old humanity.

That's the real problem. Blizzard wants to have its cake and eat it too. Kerrigan's a dangerous murderer on the one hand, and an emotional victim on the other. While this parallel has always sort of been present, never before was Kerrigan so emotional and irrational to the point where she made incredibly dumb decisions.

[Turalyon]

I am happy that she didn't want to use zerg against the Confederates back then. I'm unhappy that she destroyed multiple planets in HoTS to get revenge against a guy that ostensibly did far less to her than the same Confederates that she showed mercy to.

But her resistance to use the Zerg against the Confederates was just hot air in the end. She continued on and brushed the moral implication of it away by using "duty" as an excuse all the way to the end! In short, Kerrigan was actually Ok with using the Zerg on the Confeds. When you match this with your strong opinion that she should hate the Confeds more - you should actually be UNhappy about her statement of not wanting to use Zerg on Confederates since otherwise there is a strong inconsistency here if you do not.

In this light, her initial moral compromise with the Confeds means that her decision to use Zerg against the Dominion later is potentially consistent.

Why would Kerrigan change her mind about using zerg against other human beings? There's no evidence to support this.

As Nissa mentions, this could be character development. But, if you consider what I said above, the case is that she may not have changed her mind at all (her actions to continue with Mengsks plan to use them makes her complicit) and is instead using a different set of mental evasions to justify it the second time around.

She specifically gives order to spare terrans multiple times in HoTS because she's not in the same Queen of Blades mindset as before. And even if she were in that mindset, the Queen of Blades never showed interest in getting revenge against Mengsk.

"The Queen of Blades never showed interest in getting revenge against Mengsk"? I have no idea what you mean here since the reason why Kerrigan strung Mengsk along and then destroyed all his forces and Duke in BW was her definition of revenge against him (in the form of cruel mercy).

"I just don't think anyone deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them." - Kerrigan's opinion on Confederates
"The killing won't stop until Mengsk is dead." - Kerrigan's opinion on Mengsk

I think it's clear who she hates more. Why would she transplant her hate of the Confederates to Mengsk? And even if she did, is that still good enough of a reason to go back on her morals and unleash zerg on the entire sector (the same crime that made Mengsk so heinous in SC1). I mean, the entire reason Kerrigan was betrayed is because of this one conviction. It's core to her story.

Given the opinion regarding the Confederates is inconsistent with her eventual actions, it casts doubt on whether she does hate Mengsk more. We could say that she was only doing it out of a sense of duty, but who's to say that part of it wasn't also because she hated the Confederates than she let on? She did have reason as you outlined initially.

As to the transplanting of hate, she now possibly sees that Mengsk is no different than the Confeds. So, if she hated the Confeds, she's now gonna hate on Mengsk because he's just like them in her eyes.

As mentioned previously, her morals were shaky at best because her opinion and eventual action (or lack of action) are inconsistent. As such, she was somewhat Ok at some level about releasing Zerg on the Confederates. This then graduated into becoming Ok with it in general. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly a warped mentality but there's a twisted logic to it. Also, the reason behind Kerrigan's "betrayal" was quite ambiguous at the time (I guess that's why the EU had to say it was because she killed his parents. ugh) so we can't really say that her moral reservations was the primary reason - I once entertained an alternative interpretation that Mengsk wasn't betraying her but that it was merely just a decision based on him being an aloof utilitarian.

Eh? Not wanting to unleash Zerg against other human beings doesn't make her a sociopath. That makes her a sane well adjusted human being. Small-scale warfare that avoids civilians as collateral damage isn't the same thing.

The only thing inconsistent about her is agreeing to help fight the protoss under the naive assumption that "once we deal with the protoss we can do something about the zerg. Arcturus will come around. I know he will."

She is a morally inconsistent to begin with given that she continues being an assasin after being "freed" by Mengsk. Her eventual actions speak louder than her words when it comes to using the Zerg. In fact I don't even know if she even realises how morally compromised she is when she justifies going ahead with Mengsk's plan to lure the Zerg successfully onto Tarsonis and just brush it off as "he'll come around". It's as if she's just happy to shift the burden of moral responsibility onto Mengsk, which is just wrong to begin with. Any well-adjusted person would have just stopped long ago or made a stand if they meant what she said - she did neither.

The core corrupt government, not random civilians. A revolutionary is not necessarily a mass murderer.

But she condones and goes ahead with mass murder anyway despite voicing an objection. It kinda makes her words against it ring hollow if you ask me. God knows what she was thinking then but if you're right that she hates the Confederacy above all things, it may have subconsciously allowed her to continue with Mengsk's plan in spite of cognitive dissonance. If she was eventually able to let this slide, it's no wonder she let it slide in HotS since she had already tacitly approved of it (via non-action) the first time. In this light, it's actually kinda horrendous what Kerrigan was doing (or not doing as the case may be).

Again, the worst thing you can say about her is that she's naive. She operated under the assumption that the zerg would be dealt with.

It goes beyond being naive. If she's supposedly so against using Zerg against humans because of the principle then no after-the-fact remedial action should ever compromise that. Someone who thinks it's never OK to use WMDs does not go ahead with the use of them on the proviso that they can clean up the mess afterward. That's just crazy - which incidentally, Kerrigan must be because that is indeed how she carries on.

Infested Kerrigan purposefully left Mengsk alive during BW. In WoL, Infested Kerrigan invaded the sector to find artifacts, not to get revenge on Mengsk. Brian Kindregan said in his lore Q&As that the Queen of Blades is not that interested in getting revenge against Mengsk. Being unnecessarily cruel to her enemies is not the same as being inconsistent.

Kerrigan left Mengsk alive during BW out of revenge (cruel mercy). This may explain why she doesn't continue seeking it in Sc2 because she's already enacted it. Mengsk then goes on to try and kill her via Tychus and then pretends to kill Raynor to mess with her. Obviously, Kerrigan's first lesson didn't sink in so she now has to respond in kind to these recent developments. Seems consistent to me.

Yes, but Mengsk IS there and Kerrigan shouldn't have gone to such extreme lengths to have him eliminated. She never has before (against the Confederates, against Mengsk in BW where she left him alive, etc). Realistically, her goal should have been assassination, not warfare.

Why not? Mengsk certainly didn't let up on her during WoL and HotS. As I said before, he tried to have her killed via Tychus and then pretended to kill Raynor - these are fresh reasons for her to go after him again. Mengsk seemed content to go out of his way to mess her up, so why not return the favour? She consented with the Confederates by tacitly approving and going ahead with Mengsk's plan of using Psi-emitters on Tarsonis despite a voiced objection - so her supposed extreme hatred against them is now possibly assuaged and no longer relevent. Her first vendetta against Mengsk is resolved in BW by a punishment that parallels thematically to what she experienced - he used her to get to power and could do nothing but watch, so now, she's going to use him to get to power whilst he can do nothing but watch. As to why she didn't just kill Mengsk straight out in BW, maybe it's because she didn't hate Mengsk enough yet...

I feel the reason people don't really like the SC2 story is because the EU is not just a supplement of the lore as it should be, but rather has become a necessary part to enjoy SC2 at all. It gives everything a proper build-up rather than ending up with a story that has elements that are "This happens. Just because."

Oh, I don't know if we can generalise that to all people who didn't like Sc2. Grad seems pretty informed about the EU (more than me at any rate) and he still doesn't enjoy the story. Besides, as you said earlier, Sc1 and BW had no EU material and yet it seems to be enjoyed without a problem.

The Dominion seems like it hasn't suffered any damage from the UED...not because the writers ignored it, but because that the Dominion even in the original Starcraft at its height is weaker than the Dominion in Starcraft 2 because they've retconned the size of Terran Space.

Funnily enough, in another thread and after a lengthy back and forth, FanaticTemplar and I reconciled the possibility that the Dominion hadn't suffered any damage from the UED in BW is because the Dominion didn't actually suffer any important damage at all in BW. The reasoning is a little more complicated than that (it boils down to Mengsk's appearance in Omega) and that conclusion still doesn't sit well with me, but I do understand the perspective that BW "undid" itself in more ways than one as being the possible reason why the Dominion is as shown in Sc2.

[Gradius]

Uh, what I fail to understand is why the Confederacy matters at all. Why bother bringing them up, if Kerrigan's motivations really are the thing at question? They were a moot point by the time she became Zerg.

Because that's what I decided to make the topic about? You guys are the ones saying that Kerrigan is right in hating Mengsk more and proceeding with her overblown reaction in HoTS, but I don't see how that's consistent with human Kerrigan or infested Kerrigan and you haven't presented much evidence that it is, other than "it's been 4 years, so that explains that". Not a valid excuse.

Evidence? You need evidence someone changes over four years when they go through extreme life changes and emotional events? You need evidence that becoming genetically related to a murderous race makes a person less innocent? This isn't a matter of evidence, it's a matter of sense. The idea that her character would remain static over time, even if she returned to being human and lost her memories, makes no sense whatsoever.

For your point to make sense, you have to prove that Kerrigan's (incomplete) return to humanity in WoL was a complete reset that erased her Zerg years entirely as though they never were.

When emotional things happen to a person, they change that person's chemical makeup in their minds -- thinking depressing thoughts leads to depression, etc. Whether or not Kerrigan remembered how she used to be as Zerg, the beliefs she had about herself, Mengsk, and everyone else would have made a chemical impression in her mind. That impression isn't going to vanish simply due to memory loss. Thus, the depression, anger, pleasure of dominance, and cruelty she experienced during that time are going to be issues for her, even as a human.

None of that crap explains why she decided to kill millions more people just to get revenge against one guy. Your argument boils down to "Kerrigan changed over 4 years, therefore I'm right". That's not how debates work. We're talking about one particular thing (her stance on using zerg against humans) that the artifact seems to have left in tact due to some of her actions in HoTS.

That's the real problem. Blizzard wants to have its cake and eat it too. Kerrigan's a dangerous murderer on the one hand, and an emotional victim on the other. While this parallel has always sort of been present, never before was Kerrigan so emotional and irrational to the point where she made incredibly dumb decisions.

Well that's my point.

...She had no interest in mass murdering planets as an infested Terran? Kerrigan decimated UED forces on Korhal, under the pretense of helping Mengsk get it back. Plus, she had to go on a massive resource run just to do that. Infested Kerrigan would do whatever she had the resources to do, had she sufficient motivation.

Kerrigan left Mengsk alive during BW out of revenge (cruel mercy). This may explain why she doesn't continue seeking it in Sc2 because she's already enacted it. Mengsk then goes on to try and kill her via Tychus and then pretends to kill Raynor to mess with her. Obviously, Kerrigan's first lesson didn't sink in so she now has to respond in kind to these recent developments. Seems consistent to me.

Because that stuff had a purpose. Most of what Kerrigan did in BW was to rise to power. Even betraying Mengsk had a purpose (to prevent HIM from rising back to power). This is what SC2's lead writer said:

"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."

He's essentially saying that human Kerrigan wants him dead. The Queen of Blades herself could have cared less, especially since she left him alive for 4 years. Now yes, he did piss her off again in HoTS by pretending to kill Raynor, but the entire point of this topic is that Kerrigan has already been through all that.

The core issue then is whether you guys buy the conceit that Kerrigan had to destroy random industrial planets for a 1 hour Blitzkrieg on Korhal. Or whether she even had to wage war instead of going for assassination. It made her job easier, but if there was even a shred of old human Kerrigan left, she wouldn't have gone the easy route by needless killing those people.

It's as if she's just happy to shift the burden of moral responsibility onto Mengsk, which is just wrong to begin with.

That's something she gets to do. She gets to play the "I had a bad childhood" card and Raynor makes it clear that Mengsk is manipulating her. Furthermore, Mengsk is in charge. Soldiers shift the burden of moral responsibility to their commanders all the time.

Blaming her for unleashing zerg when she shows clear moral reservations against it is like blaming Raynor or the Magistrate, except they don't have an excuse. Now, yeah, it would have been optimal had she straight refused, but again, her naivete is a totally separate element from her morality.

Also, the reason behind Kerrigan's "betrayal" was quite ambiguous at the time

Not really. The only thing the game made clear is she was questioning Mengsk's orders and he didn't like that. If he was merely being utilitarian about leaving her, Raynor wouldn't have freaked out the way he did. Again, this one moral reservation is pretty core to her story and it seems to be why she was infested, so when you say there's a "strong inconsistency" about her wanting to spare Tarsonis, it boggles my mind. :P

[Nissa]

Because that's what I decided to make the topic about? You guys are the ones saying that Kerrigan is right in hating Mengsk more and proceeding with her overblown reaction in HoTS, but I don't see how that's consistent with human Kerrigan or infested Kerrigan and you haven't presented much evidence that it is, other than "it's been 4 years, so that explains that". Not a valid excuse.

Did you even read what I wrote? She's not "right" in proceeding with her reaction in HotS, and I said repeatedly that I agree she was out of character. All I'm doing is pointing out the fundamental flaw in your argument: you cannot look to the Kerrigan of Starcraft's Terran missions for answers about the Kerrigan of HotS.

There are two halves to this. One is that Kerrigan in the Terran missions was someone trying to do right. She'd come from a bad background, and allowed her wish for a better future deceive her into thinking she could trust Mengsk. Like I said, she's been infested, controlled by the Overmind, given the opportunity for ultimate revenge, humiliated/killed her enemies, and dealt with a lot of drama since those days. Kerrigan is a new person. Therefore, if you're going to make points about present day Kerrigan, you need to stick with stuff a bit more pertinent than a person she hasn't been in years.

The other half is that Kerrigan has lost her original writers and voice actress. The creators of SC1 are almost entirely different people than the people who created HotS. They should have tried for better consistency, but let's be honest. SC1 Kerrigan is nothing like the SC2 version.

None of that crap explains why she decided to kill millions more people just to get revenge against one guy. Your argument boils down to "Kerrigan changed over 4 years, therefore I'm right". That's not how debates work. We're talking about one particular thing (her stance on using zerg against humans) that the artifact seems to have left in tact due to some of her actions in HoTS.

You've missed the point. I was mentioning Kerrigan's change as a means to say that you can't use her actions/quotes from five years ago as concrete evidence of her present actions. I wasn't using it to say "I'm right," but "your argument is insufficient in this particular area." You can say Kerri hates the Confederates more and even make a good argument on that front, but connecting the Confederacy with her actions in HotS doesn't make sense.

What you're saying appears to boil down to "HotS Kerrigan wouldn't kill civilians because she was against it five years ago." Like Tura said, she did it even after disliking it, indicating that she will do something she appears to be against if the logic for it seems sufficient. Not to mention she killed many people, both deserving and undeserving, in BW and WoL. Surely she killed a lot of people in WoL when going after the artifacts. These events, over time, would make her more willing, rather than less, to kill for her own personal motivations. And she wasn't even entirely human in HotS -- surely some of the remaining Zerg in her still had a genetic affect on her behavior.

This isn't to say that her actions were consistent in HotS. Kerrigan was always a fairly rational person, and even as a Zerg she was willing to pretend to be friendly to get what she wanted. She knew when to fake that she was stronger than she really was, and never really lost control of herself emotionally. In HotS, she's being dragged by her own emotions as though on a leash. She's crying, screaming, saying emotional nonsense, and showing mercy just because her "true love" made a sad face. That's just plain not Kerrigan.