Kerrigan should hate the Confederacy more

[Gradius]

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.

Yes I totally can. Especially with the amnesia plot gimmick and the fact that the artifact obliterated a huge part of the personality that she's had for 4 years. What the heck else am I supposed to base her opinion on other than the person she was after 27 years?

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.

Except that's what I'm doing:

Lead writer quote: "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 telling you that Kerrigan's motivations in HoTS are closer to the Sarah Kerrigan version (human) than the Queen of Blades (infested) persona. You on the other hand have presented no evidence of character development that would disprove my theory.

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.

Two completely different situations. She didn't choose herself to release the psi emitters on Tarsonis and was being manipulated by Mengsk. She was following orders and made it crystal clear that if it was her decision, she wouldn't do it. In HoTS, she is the one in charge, nobody is manipulating her, and she opts to do it anyway despite knowing that it's wrong.

I'm right there with Tura that it would be more optimal had she straight out refused, but again, blaming her for the psi emitter usage is like blaming Raynor or the Magistrate. Raynor only straight up rebels after Kerrigan is taken by zerg.

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.

Except this is pure speculation. My quote from the lead writer on the other hand clearly states that the Queen of Blades persona is not the determining factor behind killing Mengsk. Her human aspect is far more prominent, because again, evidence:

*Spares Warfield's men.
*Spares civvies on Korhal.
*Ends human experimentation.

Again, not saying the 4 years didn't have any effect on her whatsoever, but all evidence points to the fact that it's negligible. On the other hand I'm still waiting for a shred of evidence that would support your hypothesis instead. What exactly do you think the artifact accomplished if it didn't give her a huge tract of her humanity back?

[Turalyon]

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".

I've never contended that Kerrigan had the Confeds/Mengsk more (or less for that matter). The distinction of more or less has nothing to do with it really. I've established that she was morally inconsistent from the beginning in her pre-infested state and remains morally inconsistent after she's been deinfested. Therefore, Kerrigan is consistent in her moral inconsistency.

None of that crap explains why she decided to kill millions more people just to get revenge against one guy.

There's no moral justification for her to continue with Mengsks plan in Rebel Yell after explicity saying she doesn't like it/want to do it either and yet that seems fine to you.

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).

What Kerrigan did to Mengsk was also revenge (and possibly mainly), not just for power.

MENGSK:

But you said revenge was secondary to defeating the UED!

KERRIGAN:

I lied.

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.

Mengsk didn't just "piss her off again" in Sc2. He actively tried to kill her in WoL through Tychus and then again on the Mojan research facility. Fresh charges of indecency (and that's putting it lightly) demand fresh retribution in return. She may have been done with him and "already been through all that" but Mengsk didn't feel that way based on his continued attempts against her.

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.

This is a different matter to your topic. From a perspective regarding morality, I find it reprehensible, but then again I have found all of Kerrigan's actions to be reprehensible. From a practical perspective, I do question her methods in using Zerg against random planets/unnecessary bloodshed and why she felt the need to use them at all. Then again, I've always felt she's always been morally wishy-washy and "damaged" psychologically (that thing in her manual profile about her not being able reconcile the darkness within herself helped me twig onto that) in order to self-justify her actions which is why she may not be your typical likeable (aside from badassery) character, she's quite an interesting character. So while I don't condone her actions or justifications, that Kerrigan is a "monster" (albeit a lesser one in the beginning) can be construed as being consistent.

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.

This does not make her morally sound or consistent. If she can reconcile this cognitive dissonance for the worse, morally speaking, she can reconcile unnecessary bloodshed in her pursuit of Mengsk in HotS.

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.

Naivete nor ignorance of the law is no excuse for one to give-up one's own moral responsibility. If her final actions are inconsistent with her words, then she's tacitly accepted and justified the heinous actions. It's just as bad as her accepting the decision without batting an eyelid in the first place. In short, if one clearly knows better, than act appropriately (put your money where your mouth is).

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

Raynor does not share a strict utilitarian mindset - hence his reaction to Mengsk's decision to leave 'em. If Mengsk is a utilitarian, her moral reservations would be irrelevent to him and the choice of sending her down there was purely just because he needed someone he could trust to get the job done and knowing that it would be a suicidal action, he may or may not tell them anything to incentivise them all the while knowing that he won't rescue them by risking more lives than necessary in that effort.

As to "her moral reservation being the core of her story", that's debatable. Her final actions (which speak louder than words) are completely contrary to what she bleats about not wanting to unleash Zerg. Her moral reservations amount to jack squat in the end. That's what I meant when I mentioned "strong inconsistency" - why do you place so much stock on her choice of words when she does the complete opposite?

Yes I totally can. Especially with the amnesia plot gimmick and the fact that the artifact obliterated a huge part of the personality that she's had for 4 years. What the heck else am I supposed to base her opinion on other than the person she was after 27 years?

I hope you realise now why I initially asked why you thought the artifact reverted her back to her pre-infested state or removed all her recent memories. You said it was irrelevent in response but this statements makes it clear that it isn't, at least not to you. Either that or I'm getting confused.

He's telling you that Kerrigan's motivations in HoTS are closer to the Sarah Kerrigan version (human) than the Queen of Blades (infested) persona.

Well, in that case, I've been harping on the fact that Kerrigan has always been morally inconsistent ever since we saw her for awhile now, so you can either accept that or not. Besides, I've always thought you held the opinion that Kerrigan had always been one continuous character. When did you start thinking that they (human Kerrigan and infested Kerrigan) are different/split personalities?

She didn't choose herself to release the psi emitters on Tarsonis and was being manipulated by Mengsk. She was following orders and made it crystal clear that if it was her decision, she wouldn't do it.

She was manipulating only herself to justify it. As you said, she's supposed to hate the Confeds more and it overrid her conscience. I can think of more reasons but her lack of action makes her just as culpable. She knew what was going to happen but took no further actions to stop it or divorce herself from the situation. She's the second-in-command to the SoK and not under the thumb like she was with the Confeds - she had ample opportunity to put her foot down and yet she did not. So much for her moral reservations.

In HoTS, she is the one in charge, nobody is manipulating her, and she opts to do it anyway despite knowing that it's wrong.

Given her innate moral wishi-washiness, she's able to do whatever she wants because she doesn't need to appease an authority or some sense of higher moral obligation other than her own warped one.

Raynor only straight up rebels after Kerrigan is taken by zerg.

Don't get me started on Raynor. When it comes to moral judgement, he fares no better than Kerrigan.

Again, not saying the 4 years didn't have any effect on her whatsoever, but all evidence points to the fact that it's negligible.

Man, this would be really sad if we're supposed to take this position. I'd rather ignore Blizz if they said that all the stuff from the time Kerrigan was infested to when she became un-infested was just useless bunk/filler/irrelevant character development.

What exactly do you think the artifact accomplished if it didn't give her a huge tract of her humanity back?

But aren't you equating getting back her humanity as her time-warping back to her pre-infested mindset? You said that was irrelevent before.

If it were up to me, I would've preferred it if it just depowered her and made her look human whilst retaining the continuity of her mindset (I had this fanon idea about how HotS should've played out just before it was actually released). While I have argued that it does just that in HotS, it doesn't really feel like that's the way Blizz intended it to be.

[Nissa]

Oh Gradius, buddy, you lost me when you said the changes Kerri went through in the past four years were negligible. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Since the beginning of those four years, Kerrigan has been through a lot, all of which are bound to change who she is and how she reacts to those things around her.

Okay, so let's make the official start of those changes at the beginning of the Terran missions. What exactly has Kerri been through since the beginning?
- Witnessed the devastating first impression of the Protoss blowing a planet up (yes, I know this affects more people than her, but a new race coming in forces everyone to view things in a more three dimensional setting, and this is important in intellectual questions of the use of violence in getting what one wants.)
- betrayed by Mengsk, someone she trusted enough to allow him to sway her against what she claims her morals are.
- captured by the Zerg and forced into a dramatic genetic transformation.
- forced into submission by the Overmind.
- was insulted by Tassadar badly enough she felt it necessary to avenge the offense later on.
- suddenly released from the Overmind's control, and is free to make choices again based on what she wants.
- fights a war against the Zerg cerebrates.
- betrays the Protoss and makes concrete enemies of them.
- forcibly dominates the other races of the Sector
- gains revenge against Mengsk
- kills Fenix and earns the wrath of Raynor, perhaps the only person she genuinely cared about besides herself.
- spends many lonely years dwelling on her life and what she has done, surrounded only by wrathful creatures and Iszcha.
- finds out about the hybrids or prophecies (her motives in WoL are questionable), and ends up believing that nothing can be done to save the Sector.
- forcibly brought mostly back into humanity
- shut in a lab
- constantly pursued by vengeful man who feels no reluctance in killing Raynor.

Now, if Kerrigan hasn't changed after all that happening to her, what does it take for someone to really change? People who live lives one hundredth as exciting as Kerri's change and learn. Just the fact that Kerrigan spent the time between BW and WoL alone would have a huge impact in how she views herself and sees other people. She's spent all that time stewing with herself and being surrounded by her ever more stagnating ideas. If a person could remain static with Kerrigan's background, then nobody would change at all.

I've never contended that Kerrigan had the Confeds/Mengsk more (or less for that matter). The distinction of more or less has nothing to do with it really. I've established that she was morally inconsistent from the beginning in her pre-infested state and remains morally inconsistent after she's been deinfested. Therefore, Kerrigan is consistent in her moral inconsistency.

You make a really interesting point here. The thing that makes Kerrigan who she is, clearly isn't her moral code and how she follows it. While Kerrigan's best appearances are generally well thought out, she bases her choices on things other than reason or what's right in a given situation.

In any case, I've always understood Kerrigan's perspective as a female thing. Everything she has done has been done in a feminine way -- it's based not on any real desire to conquer the universe (she would have tried to conquer things in WoL first instead of waiting to be provoked by threat of the prophecies, if that were the case), but by her own hurt. Kerrigan was hurt by the Confederacy, but since she believed Mengsk to be a good or morally sound person, she came to trust that not only morals exist, but that she should follow them. However, her actions weren't necessarily moral ones. She ended up doing for Mengsk exactly what she would have done under the Confederacy. The only differences being that Mengsk acknowledged her, gave her rank, and pretended morals mattered.

Because Kerrigan's basis for morality wasn't morality itself, but Mengsk's interpretation of them, she wanted to believe that Mengsk was right in using the Zerg against the Confederacy, and that it was right for her to fight the Protoss for the Zerg's sake. Her belief in Mengsk trumped her belief in ethics, and even plain reason.

When Kerrigan became a Zerg, morals stopped being a veil for her actions, and reason took its place -- as a fake, that is, not her real motivation or basis of thought. As a Zerg, Kerrigan did for the Overmind more or less what she would have done for the Confederacy or for Mengsk, the only difference being that the Overmind needed her as more of a test subject than an operative. And this time, Kerrigan wasn't naive. She knew exactly what her position was, and she immediately had every intent of doing whatever she wanted and had the ability to do. In fact, her very first act as a Zerg is to disobey the Overmind in sparing Raynor's life. Then she, without orders, went to go find out as much as she could about what the Confederacy did to her mind.

And in BW, her actions had the primary purpose of punishing others she felt deserved it, as they had hurt her in one way or another. Some were just in the way (Aldaris, UED), but Kerrigan's conquest of the Sector was to have the power to do as she pleased -- to kill Duke, humiliate Zeratul, and prove to Mengsk that she can be an even worse tyrant than him. In other words, Kerrigan's actions were based on her perceived emotional needs, not on morality or reason -- like someone mentioned before, it would be more rational to not reveal that Raszagal's mind was taken over, so that she could continue to have power over the Protoss. But since her motives were emotional, it was more important to her to destroy Zeratul's spirit.

Eh, kind of a rant, but it goes that Kerrigan was more compelling back in the days when we had to guess at her emotional issues, not now in HotS that her emotions are shoved in everyone's faces, completely devoid of all subtlety whatsoever.

[Gradius]

1) Again, if Kerrigan is morally inconsistent, so is Raynor, the Magistrate, and the rest of the Raiders (never mind the people who stayed with Mengsk). Those people also killed for a living because they thought they were making a difference. Kerrigan was the first to question his orders, and the first to die for it. The idea that she's "morally inconsistent" while voicing objections to Mengsk's plan, who has been manipulating her into following orders from the start, is logically bankrupt. If you wouldn't accuse a U.S. soldier of being a hypocrite for killing people, you shouldn't do it here.

2) Kerrigan in BW was not in her right mind according to SC2 canon. Yes, she killed a ton of people and got revenge against Mengsk because the infestation brought out her darker aspects, but if the Confeds were still alive, she'd have reason to hate them more. Back to what I said in the OP.

Oh Gradius, buddy, you lost me when you said the changes Kerri went through in the past four years were negligible. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Since the beginning of those four years, Kerrigan has been through a lot, all of which are bound to change who she is and how she reacts to those things around her.

Okay, so let's make the official start of those changes at the beginning of the Terran missions. What exactly has Kerri been through since the beginning?
- Witnessed the devastating first impression of the Protoss blowing a planet up (yes, I know this affects more people than her, but a new race coming in forces everyone to view things in a more three dimensional setting, and this is important in intellectual questions of the use of violence in getting what one wants.)
- betrayed by Mengsk, someone she trusted enough to allow him to sway her against what she claims her morals are.
- captured by the Zerg and forced into a dramatic genetic transformation.
- forced into submission by the Overmind.
- was insulted by Tassadar badly enough she felt it necessary to avenge the offense later on.
- suddenly released from the Overmind's control, and is free to make choices again based on what she wants.
- fights a war against the Zerg cerebrates.
- betrays the Protoss and makes concrete enemies of them.
- forcibly dominates the other races of the Sector
- gains revenge against Mengsk
- kills Fenix and earns the wrath of Raynor, perhaps the only person she genuinely cared about besides herself.
- spends many lonely years dwelling on her life and what she has done, surrounded only by wrathful creatures and Iszcha.
- finds out about the hybrids or prophecies (her motives in WoL are questionable), and ends up believing that nothing can be done to save the Sector.
- forcibly brought mostly back into humanity
- shut in a lab
- constantly pursued by vengeful man who feels no reluctance in killing Raynor.

Now, if Kerrigan hasn't changed after all that happening to her, what does it take for someone to really change? People who live lives one hundredth as exciting as Kerri's change and learn. Just the fact that Kerrigan spent the time between BW and WoL alone would have a huge impact in how she views herself and sees other people. She's spent all that time stewing with herself and being surrounded by her ever more stagnating ideas. If a person could remain static with Kerrigan's background, then nobody would change at all.

How. Does. That. Prove. Your. Point?

A person who's mind was warped and ended up killing a bunch of people, later freed via magical artifact, and has memories of their crimes come funneling back to them is NOT going to repeat those same crimes of her own volition and willingly reinfest herself. That's ridiculous. Avoidance is one of the symptoms of PTSD. For her to do the things she did in HoTS, her hatred of Mengsk must have been far more than it ever was of the Confederates. In fact, the intervening four years should have reinforced her previous notion that "nobody deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them". You know, kind of one of her core principles that she died for in the first place.

For the 80th time, stop using "it was 4 years" as a debate tactic. This is the first time Kerrigan's (apparently) been in her right mind in four years.

There's no moral justification for her to continue with Mengsks plan in Rebel Yell after explicity saying she doesn't like it/want to do it either and yet that seems fine to you.

From the game: "The Protoss are coming to destroy the entire planet, not just the Zerg. I know that because ... well I just know it. I am a Ghost, remember. Once we've dealt with the Protoss, we can do something about the Zerg. Arcturus will come around. I know he will."

She's not actually helping him with his plan, and she did not use psi emitters on Tarsonis herself. She's tackling an entirely different problem.

This does not make her morally sound or consistent. If she can reconcile this cognitive dissonance for the worse, morally speaking, she can reconcile unnecessary bloodshed in her pursuit of Mengsk in HotS.

Two completely different situations. Find me a quote remotely similar to the above from HoTS.

As to "her moral reservation being the core of her story", that's debatable. Her final actions (which speak louder than words) are completely contrary to what she bleats about not wanting to unleash Zerg. Her moral reservations amount to jack squat in the end. That's what I meant when I mentioned "strong inconsistency" - why do you place so much stock on her choice of words when she does the complete opposite?

She thought she was saving the entire planet from the protoss, which could then be saved from the zerg. The fact that her moral reservations amounted to jack squat is unfortunate but doesn't support your hypothesis that she's morally inconsistent.

She was manipulating only herself to justify it.

Again, from the game:

RAYNOR
Why are you doing this, Kerrigan? Look. I
know about your past. I mean, I've heard
the rumors. I know you were a part of those
experiments with the Zerg; that Mengsk
came and saved you, but you don't owe
him this!

Obviously Kerrigan feels a sense of irrational loyalty to Arcturus for rescuing her. If you want me to buy your interpretation of Kerrigan, it has to incorporate this fact from the game.

Besides, I've always thought you held the opinion that Kerrigan had always been one continuous character. When did you start thinking that they (human Kerrigan and infested Kerrigan) are different/split personalities?

I don't. I'm quoting the lead writer, who agrees that the previous four years wouldn't have necessarily increased her desire to get revenge against Mengsk.

I hope you realise now why I initially asked why you thought the artifact reverted her back to her pre-infested state or removed all her recent memories. You said it was irrelevent in response but this statements makes it clear that it isn't, at least not to you. Either that or I'm getting confused.

It's irrelevant because Kerrigan should still hate the Confederacy more, not because there is no effect.

Don't get me started on Raynor. When it comes to moral judgement, he fares no better than Kerrigan.

Don't you think that it's weird that pretty much every character in the game doesn't fit your definition of "moral consistency"?

Man, this would be really sad if we're supposed to take this position. I'd rather ignore Blizz if they said that all the stuff from the time Kerrigan was infested to when she became un-infested was just useless bunk/filler/irrelevant character development.

Sigh. Useless bunk/filler/irrelevant as it pertains to her hatred of Mengsk (aka. the topic at hand), not useless bunk/filler/irrelevant to her character entirely. I thought that was obvious. :P

[Nissa]

How. Does. That. Prove. Your. Point?

A person who's mind was warped and ended up killing a bunch of people, later freed via magical artifact, and has memories of their crimes come funneling back to them is NOT going to repeat those same crimes of her own volition and willingly reinfest herself. That's ridiculous. Avoidance is one of the symptoms of PTSD. For her to do the things she did in HoTS, her hatred of Mengsk must have been far more than it ever was of the Confederates. In fact, the intervening four years should have reinforced her previous notion that "nobody deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them". You know, kind of one of her core principles that she died for in the first place.

For the 80th time, stop using "it was 4 years" as a debate tactic. This is the first time Kerrigan's (apparently) been in her right mind in four years.

That's where you're wrong. You have failed to prove that she does have her right mind after four years. One, she's still part Zerg. Two, she's been through the emotional wringer, and no magic object is going to suddenly turn her innocent (or more innocent, as the case may be) again. Her past experiences have not been erased. Three, "right mind" does not mean she's never changed at all.

If you don't believe me, well, alright, but to assume her change back to a human was a complete and total reset despite the fact it didn't even remove all her Zerg DNA.....you're obviously not a writer.

[Gradius]

but to assume her change back to a human was a complete and total reset

I can't believe that after 40 posts you still don't understand that that's not my argument. -_-

[Turalyon]

Again, if Kerrigan is morally inconsistent, so is Raynor, the Magistrate, and the rest of the Raiders (never mind the people who stayed with Mengsk). Those people also killed for a living because they thought they were making a difference.

I never excluded those others you mentioned for they were also morally culpabile ever since the very first use of the Psi-emitter. Raynor is especially craven in regards to his morality when he only decides to take action against Mengsk and blame him for being wrong only after he loses Kerrigan. He obviously didn't think the previous uses of the psi-emitter and the thousands killed as a result were cause enough to spark his righteous moral outrage and move him to leave Mengsk on any of those two earlier occasions then, did he?

Kerrigan was the first to question his orders, and the first to die for it. The idea that she's "morally inconsistent" while voicing objections to Mengsk's plan, who has been manipulating her into following orders from the start, is logically bankrupt. If you wouldn't accuse a U.S. soldier of being a hypocrite for killing people, you shouldn't do it here.

Kerrigan was the second-in-command. If she didn't want to do it, she could've easily said no. She wasn't under any real authority to do what Mengsk asks other than her own delusion that she owed Mengsk something. Using an excuse to shift one's own moral obligation is the height of hypocrisy when one starts making moral pronouncements and then goes to do the opposite like Kerrigan does. If one is prepared to lay down their moral code for all to see, I'm going to expect them to be consistent about it in all of their actions. She is inconsistent because she says one thing and uses an excuse to justify continuing to do/assisting the very opposite of that one thing.

The soldier analogy is not very apt since soldiers are not routinely asked to attack an enemy by assisting the use of a weapon of mass destruction that would most certainly kill many civilians as well. If such a scenario did occur, those who claim the moral high-ground of never doing such a thing but then go on to assist with such an activity citing orders as the reason are morally inconsistent.

Yes, she killed a ton of people and got revenge against Mengsk because the infestation brought out her darker aspects, but if the Confeds were still alive, she'd have reason to hate them more.

So what if she hated the Confeds more? The fact she is attacking Mengsk now in HotS is potential proof (yeah, I know the reasoning is skethcy due to the "absence of evidence..." thing which is why I also said potential) that the Confeds are not there anymore because otherwise she would have attacked them if she did hate them more. Besides, if the Confeds were still around in HotS they are so bereft of power and influence that it isn't worth showing/acknowledging her attacking them because they are no threat to her. She's not attacking Mengsk based on the assumption she hates him more, it's because it's in terms of current priority/threat.

From the game: "The Protoss are coming to destroy the entire planet, not just the Zerg. I know that because ... well I just know it. I am a Ghost, remember. Once we've dealt with the Protoss, we can do something about the Zerg. Arcturus will come around. I know he will."

She's not actually helping him with his plan, and she did not use psi emitters on Tarsonis herself. She's tackling an entirely different problem.

That justification is a bit rich coming from Kerrigan. She's essentially saying "I'm going to kill the Protoss because they're going to do the same thing as the Zerg I just helped lure here in the first place". She is delusional.

Two completely different situations.

You've made it apparently clear they are not since you're the one insisting that pre-infested Kerrigan and uninfested Kerrigan are supposedly of the same mindset. My explanation is perfectly in line with the narrative you've contructed.

She thought she was saving the entire planet from the protoss, which could then be saved from the zerg. The fact that her moral reservations amounted to jack squat is unfortunate but doesn't support your hypothesis that she's morally inconsistent.

"Which could then be saved from the zerg"? She knows they were brought there in the first place to destroy the entire planet and knows that Mengsk will not then ask her to kill the Zerg after the Protoss and yet she still supports Mengsk's clearly immoral agenda to the bitter end.

On a side note, Kerrigan's Ghost instincts are wrong about the Protoss destroying the planet. Tassadar's "ground action" was actually an attempt to preserve the planet, otherwise, they would have just glassed the world as they did the few times before. If she really "knew" what the Protoss were thinking, she would've stepped aside and let the Protoss engage the Zerg and destroy them since that would be in-line with her moral stance of not letting the Zerg be unleashed on people.

Obviously Kerrigan feels a sense of irrational loyalty to Arcturus for rescuing her. If you want me to buy your interpretation of Kerrigan, it has to incorporate this fact from the game.

Isn't the fact that she is "irrational loyal" a form of internal manipulation/self-justification to permit a morally wrong action?

I'm quoting the lead writer, who agrees that the previous four years wouldn't have necessarily increased her desire to get revenge against Mengsk.

Fine but in Sc2, there is a few reasons for Kerrigan to start enacting revenge on Mengsk again. The way she goes about is certainly suspect but given the trauma she's been through, her not thinking straight is not that unbelievable.

It's irrelevant because Kerrigan should still hate the Confederacy more, not because there is no effect.

And I can counter that it is equally pointless to say she hates the Confederacy at the point she becomes deinfested because the Confederacy no longer has any agency or power at that point in time and that there's no way you can verify that she did in effect revert to her pre-infested mindset.

Don't you think that it's weird that pretty much every character in the game doesn't fit your definition of "moral consistency"?

Not at all - thing is, I don't see moral inconsistency as a "bad" thing as someone else might (I'm just offering it here to possibly help explain the apparent discrepancy you've found), just like I don't see the characters in Sc1 in an absolute scale of either being good or evil/right or wrong. All the characters are justified in their actions but it doesn't mean they are immune to strict moral judgement. You'd be surprised to know that no-one is ever truly morally consistent - philosophical experiments have proven this.

Useless bunk/filler/irrelevant as it pertains to her hatred of Mengsk (aka. the topic at hand), not useless bunk/filler/irrelevant to her character entirely.

Eh, it's much of a muchness. Her characterisation/character development is somewhat intertwined with Mengsk such that you can't really talk about one without the other or deny one without denying an aspect of the other.

[Gradius]

That justification is a bit rich coming from Kerrigan. She's essentially saying "I'm going to kill the Protoss because they're going to do the same thing as the Zerg I just helped lure here in the first place". She is delusional.

Again, stop saying that she helped lure those zerg there. She simply didn't and that's a fact from the game:

KERRIGAN
Who authorized the use of Psi-Emitters?

Is she delusional thinking Mengsk will change his mind? Sure. But in a way, she's tackling a different (and in her mind more important) problem and divorcing herself from the situation in a way as you put it. If everyone is morally inconsistent, then Kerrigan has done nothing out of the ordinary here, along with everyone else in the game.

Isn't the fact that she is "irrational loyal" a form of internal manipulation/self-justification to permit a morally wrong action?

No. It's her being manipulated by Mengsk.

You've made it apparently clear they are not since you're the one insisting that pre-infested Kerrigan and uninfested Kerrigan are supposedly of the same mindset. My explanation is perfectly in line with the narrative you've contructed.

SC1:
*Second in command, yet still has to follow orders. Mengsk made that crystal clear.
*Being manipulated by Mengsk into thinking she's doing the right thing.
*Didn't actually release zerg on the planets herself.
*Tried to fix the situation (in her own messed up way).
*Disagreed with using zerg in the first place, and died for that belief.

HoTS:
*Been through infestation, which should further convince her "nobody deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them".
*She's the one in charge, yet decides that it's necessary to repeat the same crime as Mengsk, only on multiple planets this time.

Two completely different situations. To say that what we had in SC1 justifies her going on a mass murder spree in HoTS makes no sense to me whatever.

And I can counter that it is equally pointless to say she hates the Confederacy at the point she becomes deinfested because the Confederacy no longer has any agency or power at that point in time and that there's no way you can verify that she did in effect revert to her pre-infested mindset.

Everything here is hypothetical, but I feel I've provided enough evidence in the OP that she should hate the Confederates more. 10 years of someone treating you like crap is not close to one betrayal.

[Nissa]

I can't believe that after 40 posts you still don't understand that that's not my argument. -_-

Insulting me does not equal logic, friend. It's called dodging.

I was using Kerrigan's change to reflect the fact you can't use something she said four or five years ago as the basis for her current actions. She's a different person now, the old quote is basically irrelevant. That's all.

[Turalyon]

Again, stop saying that she helped lure those zerg there. She simply didn't and that's a fact from the game

The actual events speak for themselves. What, you expect things to have still turned out the way they did had it not been for Kerrigan (Raynor and magistrates, too) actions? All we have is Kerrigan talking and doing nothing to back up such supposed convictions, all the while assisting (there's no other way I can really put it - she didn't divorce herself in anyway which is the least one can do) the makings of an atrocity. But whatever. If you want to go and think she's naive to cover her wish-washiness, then you can't stop me from saying she's back to being naive (to explain her actions) as well in HotS after the deinfestation. She should have known and done better then but she didn't and since the didn't learn anything from that due to mind-wipe, she is free to make that mistake again.

Is she delusional thinking Mengsk will change his mind? Sure. But in a way, she's tackling a different (and in her mind more important) problem and divorcing herself from the situation in a way as you put it. If everyone is morally inconsistent, then Kerrigan has done nothing out of the ordinary here, along with everyone else in the game.

There, you have found the answer that has long eluded you. She is delusional and making self-justifications back then and, unsurprisingly, is doing the same now. It's certainly no worse than the "Kerrigan's love for Raynor was of the type that would cause insanity if anything got in the way of it" reason.

No. It's her being manipulated by Mengsk.

Well don't confuse me then by saying she has "irrational loyalty" since that shifts the onus of the problem on the person who experiences it.

If I rescued someone with either good, bad or neutral intent, is it really my complete fault that the rescuee becomes "irrationally loyal" to me from that point on?

Second in command, yet still has to follow orders. Mengsk made that crystal clear.

She can always rebel against him if she felt morally obliged enough. Obviously, she wasn't.

Being manipulated by Mengsk into thinking she's doing the right thing.

She is not being manipulated into doing the "right thing" - she's supposedly against using Zerg and voices that opinion afterall. She knows that every minute she stays with Mengsk is furthering the makings of an atrocity. Seems more like self-delusion/deception to me.

Didn't actually release zerg on the planets herself.

No, she just voiced an objection and did nothing to reinforce such objections except still working for and with the organisation/parties that did release them, thereby (and somehow) tacitly approving their actions.

Tried to fix the situation (in her own messed up way).

...by attacking the one thing that could've potentially stopped the Zerg (due to incorrect intuition - citing the infallibility of being a Ghost no less - of what the Protoss were actually wanting) whilst doing nothing to the Zerg themselves proper in the first place.

Disagreed with using zerg in the first place, and died for that belief.

She "died" for having no backbone to take appropriate action for her supposed strong moral obligation. One can also say she died because she blindlessly (and wilfully blinded at that if her moral objections are to be taken with any significant weight) followed orders.

Been through infestation, which should further convince her "nobody deserves to have the zerg unleashed on them".

She has opportunistic and selective amnesia so she can't really be sure how bad her time being infested was. Why is that she can't remember "feeling good about what she was" (when infested)?

She's the one in charge, yet decides that it's necessary to repeat the same crime as Mengsk, only on multiple planets this time.

She wasn't that restricted by moral obligation before and now she has no-one/morality pet to answer to or appease she can do whatever she likes. Her mental evasion to justify continuing with the SoK can be use to mentally evade the ramifications of her actions. Her justification of attacking those industrial planets because they might assist Mengsk is enough of a mental evasion/excuse to avoid fulfilling any moral obligation she has.

Two completely different situations. To say that what we had in SC1 justifies her going on a mass murder spree in HoTS makes no sense to me whatever.

It sort of seems to me, as the saying goes, like you're wanting to possess a cake and eat it at the same time. One part wants her human part to remain the same/consistent between the pre-infested and deinfested Kerrigan but not wanting to accept a possible explanation and another part not wanting to accept that two different situations at different places and time could possibly mean two different approaches/outcomes due to a variety of reasons up to and including character development (sure you can cite the author making a claim after the fact but if it isn't actually apparent in the work - it's up to anyone's speculation really).

Everything here is hypothetical, but I feel I've provided enough evidence in the OP that she should hate the Confederates more. 10 years of someone treating you like crap is not close to one betrayal.

I'm not doubting that, I'm just doubting the relevance of citing this to deny the current value Kerrigan has placed on her action against Mengsk in HoTS when the Confederate are no more. It's the "here and now" that is what Kerrigan's actions against Mengsk are predicated on. You can speculate all you want about how she would react if the Confeds still existed somewhere at the time of HotS, but because they don't in actuality, it's kinda pointless bringing them up at all.