New Prelude Comic

[The_Blade]

Huh? I (or any other third party really) can do a better job of questioning Kerrigan's innocence than Raynor. Afterall, when it comes to Kerrigan, Raynor is not exactly the most impartial person around.

I meant this from Kerrigan's point of view. I phrased a "may" sentence with "can" like a little kid. Raynor is the only character who may question Kerrigan's innocence without being killed for it (by Kerrigan).

Like razing the industrial worlds? If she told Raynor that on the Moros he would have told her that she was supposed to be better than that

She actually did. He knew. Explicitly saying something is not the only way to say things. Watch the clip again and tell me she did not take the guilt for once again becoming the QoB (by killing of course) and that he did not think she was better than that.

Not quite. The Zerg are a swarm of what essentially amounts to drones directed by a higher power bent on domination. The death of a Zerg is akin to slaying a rabid dog. Killing a Protoss or Terran is tantamount to murder. I don't see how Kerrigan doesn't understand the distinction when conversing with Lassara.

This statement is void when speaking about another's moral point of view (Zerg). Your approach is based on antagonizing the Zerg; which, by definition, places you closer to the moral grounds of Protoss or Terran. Yet, what if I believe the Zerg swarm is more just in its systems than Terrans or Protoss? What if I believe there's a better approach towards life conservation through the swarm than through civilizations grasping apocalyptic technology? I can counteract any of your moral opinion regarding individualized civilizations and so can you in return towards my arguments.

This changes nothing about the actions of the characters involved in the conflict. Lassara is a member of the colonizing Protoss, Kerrigan kills for the Zerg and Warfield is part of the Dominion. Their possition of leadership was not founded by their omniscient moral analysis but rather by how they could act in the best interest of their people.

Lassara and Warfield were killed because they played the guilt card and denied their own role as biased killers. Warfield's troops were spared, because there is sympathy for the Terrans while there's none for the Protoss.

A little more on moral distinctions:

IIRC, it was the Conclave that deemed the Terrans as an inferior race. The ethical debate that surged from the events of "first contact" lead to Tassadar's defection. Later, Selendis operated a similar directive to purify the Terran colonies once again. Therefore, Artanis still operates without a moral high ground to save his people.

Warfield is probably the character with the most exposure to corruption. Whether he pretends to be good or corrupts himself for the greater good, his acts as a Dominion general shows out the lot of moral problems. He might have taken charge of the Char operations just to get out of the Terran bloodshed, but that still killed A LOT of his troops. The best general with the best intentions is killing the Zerg to protect Mengsk's unstable dictatorship in light of a better future under Valerian. Still no moral high ground.

Some Zerg creatures were forced into the Swarm, but the Overlord volunteered. Zerus flourished biologically after the Swarm Zerg ravaged the planet.

Kerrigan believes she can kill Amon on her own. She is positive about being a monster and conscious of the lives she has taken. She will try to kill the least amount of Terrans and Protoss, but she also thinks her decisions are the best. Killing Amon also saves the two other races. So, she kills anyone who is stupid enough to confront her about her moronic missions and tactics.

Kerrigan is right. There is no moral high ground on this scale. Conflict will consume any or all of the three main factions, specially if they wish to forge war against each other with the threat of Amon so close.

[ragnarok]

She actually did. He knew. Explicitly saying something is not the only way to say things. Watch the clip again and tell me she did not take the guilt for once again becoming the QoB (by killing of course) and that he did not think she was better than that.

If you're referring to the "What I had to" part, yes Kerrigan did imply that, though I don't think Raynor knew about it. Raynor wanted to believe she was better than all this. In the Flashpoint book, Kerrigan had told him that the Zerg chose her because the only thing she seemed to understand was killing, he refused to see it that way.

Thus seeing her like this got him to think all this time his assumption about her had been based on wishful thinking and everything.

Kerrigan believes she can kill Amon on her own. She is positive about being a monster and conscious of the lives she has taken. She will try to kill the least amount of Terrans and Protoss, but she also thinks her decisions are the best. Killing Amon also saves the two other races. So, she kills anyone who is stupid enough to confront her about her moronic missions and tactics.

That's utterly stupid. A fundamental reason for high casualty lists in ANY war fought is the lack of intel on your enemy. THAT is her problem: even after her defeat at the end of WoL, she doesn't seem to understand there's limits to what the swarm can do.

Narud was right to say she knew nothing of the Xel'Naga, yet she thought the numbers alone via the swarm will bypass that.

[Turalyon]

This statement is void when speaking about another's moral point of view (Zerg). Your approach is based on antagonizing the Zerg; which, by definition, places you closer to the moral grounds of Protoss or Terran. Yet, what if I believe the Zerg swarm is more just in its systems than Terrans or Protoss? What if I believe there's a better approach towards life conservation through the swarm than through civilizations grasping apocalyptic technology? I can counteract any of your moral opinion regarding individualized civilizations and so can you in return towards my arguments.

This changes nothing about the actions of the characters involved in the conflict. Lassara is a member of the colonizing Protoss, Kerrigan kills for the Zerg and Warfield is part of the Dominion. Their possition of leadership was not founded by their omniscient moral analysis but rather by how they could act in the best interest of their people.

This would all be correct save for one thing: Kerrigan does not kill for the Zerg or seemingly hold to their ideals with any conviction. She kills purely for her own self-justifying needs, whatever they may be and is unabashed to say so. I think that this specific quality is what defines her development as a character throughout Sc1/BW. She does not hide under pretense and if she does do so, it's only for as long as necessary to get something done that serves her own purposes. It's quite ironic that it was Mengsk, who is just as selfish in his motivations but yet persists under the veil of some higher ideal/purpose, is the one who instigates that change. She is more like Mengsk than she realises.

This would be all fine and good if not for the way HotS seems to want us to believe that Kerrigan's actions seem morally better because they are put in direct contrast to Mengsk's displays of outright villainy/evilness. It's what makes this exchange between in Kerrigan and Lasarra in HotS ring hollow because although there is truth in what she says (we do stuff because we think we have to do them and that's all), the overall story itself gives a mixed message by saying that though everyone really does things on a selfish whim for whatever reason and that they're really all the same, there are some selfish whims that are more just/right than others. The climax of the whole HotS story is about the final removal of Mengsk and his supposed tyranny afterall and it just ends there with no real reflection on the consequences. All we have is a thankful Raynor who acts as a morality pet/chain to Kerrigan, who rises into the air like an angel to do some more good by going to fight an even more nastier demon/devil thing. That's just intellectual dishonesty/BS of the highest order.

[ragnarok]

This would all be correct save for one thing: Kerrigan does not kill for the Zerg or seemingly hold to their ideals with any conviction. She kills purely for her own self-justifying needs, whatever they may be and is unabashed to say so. I think that this specific quality is what defines her development as a character throughout Sc1/BW. She does not hide under pretense and if she does do so, it's only for as long as necessary to get something done that serves her own purposes. It's quite ironic that it was Mengsk, who is just as selfish in his motivations but yet persists under the veil of some higher ideal/purpose, is the one who instigates that change. She is more like Mengsk than she realises.

She was back in BW and everything. But HotS was different. It wasn't about gaining power. The ORIGINAL goal was merely to use the swarm to deal with Mengsk and then walk away. Even after the primal transformation Kerrigan was still thinking that, to some degree. It was only by the time of Skygeirr that she saw otherwise.

The main problem here is she's not willing to see any good intents in anyone else. This would be consistent with the way she acted towards Zeratul in Whispers of Oblivion. To her, everyone is just too stupid.

[Turalyon]

^ That distinction still falls under the umbrella of "self-justifying needs". Either way, by the story's own standards, "dealing with Mengsk only" is still considered a morally good thing since it depicts Mengsk myopically as bad/evil. Like I said, her "I justify nothing" rant is rendered meaningless due to that mixed message. Indeed, I think it's the reason why people deem that response to Lasarra as her justifying her actions when, ironically, it shouldn't have been.

[drakolobo]

blizzard is not intended to give a heroes Kerrigan in hots, is an anti-heroine in every step gives us a selfish hunt because the word revenge is all HOTS. any attempt to justify it's just a realistic reaction to a person who is confronted by her actions. she is honest with Abathur is just revenge. a monster, killing another monster (Alucard laments). Jim is the only thing that makes it morally thinking about what she does. at the end of Hots, Raynor stops searching happens to be rational and give it the desired revenge, perhaps hoping that Kerrigan is free after concluding it.

[ragnarok]

^ That distinction still falls under the umbrella of "self-justifying needs". Either way, by the story's own standards, "dealing with Mengsk only" is still considered a morally good thing since it depicts Mengsk myopically as bad/evil. Like I said, her "I justify nothing" rant is rendered meaningless due to that mixed message. Indeed, I think it's the reason why people deem that response to Lasarra as her justifying her actions when, ironically, it shouldn't have been.

Thus the major problem here is that for her, the ends justify the means. This is why if this concept was suddenly used against her, maybe she can see the folly of that.

[Gradius]

blizzard is not intended to give a heroes Kerrigan in hots, is an anti-heroine in every step gives us a selfish hunt because the word revenge is all HOTS. any attempt to justify it's just a realistic reaction to a person who is confronted by her actions. she is honest with Abathur is just revenge. a monster, killing another monster (Alucard laments). Jim is the only thing that makes it morally thinking about what she does. at the end of Hots, Raynor stops searching happens to be rational and give it the desired revenge, perhaps hoping that Kerrigan is free after concluding it.

The legions of fans who I argue with on battle.net that think Kerrigan was a hero would like a word with you.

She ended human experimentation, she insisted on sparing terrans, she spared Warfield's troops, she is fighting against the bad guys (Mengsk & Amon), etc. etc. A vast majority of the fanbase likely considers her a good person. Raynor's supposed to be a good guy too, yet he's fine with allying with her to kill more humans and even tells us what a pleasure it was as she flies away at the end of the game.

It's obvious Blizzard has been trying to portray her in a mostly heroic capacity, with the pretense of killing off entire worlds wholesale as being justified as "war is war".

[ragnarok]

It's obvious Blizzard has been trying to portray her in a mostly heroic capacity, with the pretense of killing off entire worlds wholesale as being justified as "war is war".

Gradius, the whole war is war concept is nothing new. It's meant to be brutal and everything. And when the war ends, whoever is the victor usually has the mentality "success carries its own justification with it." This isn't just a Zerg concept, it's been part of human history for thousands of years. In many cases, the victors show no restraint AT ALL, and didn't understand restraint several years even AFTER the war.

Therefore, the fact that Kerrigan even SAW the restraint line, well I'm sure you can see where this is going.

[The_Blade]

That's utterly stupid. A fundamental reason for high casualty lists in ANY war fought is the lack of intel on your enemy. THAT is her problem: even after her defeat at the end of WoL, she doesn't seem to understand there's limits to what the swarm can do.

I agree with the sentiment. She acts in a very stupid way, constantly. And she acts this way because she constantly feels better than everyone else, specially when becoming more powerful through *plot device*.

This would all be correct save for one thing: Kerrigan does not kill for the Zerg or seemingly hold to their ideals with any conviction. She kills purely for her own self-justifying needs, whatever they may be and is unabashed to say so.

She kills for both reasons at the same time. Primal infused Zerg are "different". Therefore, there should be a distinction between the will of the Overmind in Vanilla and the will of the new Swarm at the end of HotS. Amon's directive is no longer a priority, but the Zerg are no less slaves of their leaders. Whoever is in charge of the Swarm IS the will of the Swarm.

Killing Mengsk allows her to be free of at least a fraction of her personal agenda. Indirectly it serves the Swarm.

This would be all fine and good if not for the way HotS seems to want us to believe that Kerrigan's actions seem morally better because they are put in direct contrast to Mengsk's displays of outright villainy/evilness. It's what makes this exchange between in Kerrigan and Lasarra in HotS ring hollow because although there is truth in what she says (we do stuff because we think we have to do them and that's all), the overall story itself gives a mixed message by saying that though everyone really does things on a selfish whim for whatever reason and that they're really all the same, there are some selfish whims that are more just/right than others. The climax of the whole HotS story is about the final removal of Mengsk and his supposed tyranny afterall and it just ends there with no real reflection on the consequences. All we have is a thankful Raynor who acts as a morality pet/chain to Kerrigan, who rises into the air like an angel to do some more good by going to fight an even more nastier demon/devil thing. That's just intellectual dishonesty/BS of the highest order.

These lack of grey constant throughout the story is what shatters the whole credibility of SC2 as a serious plot. I agree with you when interpreting: "the lack of consequence", "the flaws in Raynor's character", and "the ultimate evil boss". I disagree strongly into dragging those flaws down into other story elements. I understand that as parts of plot they are linked together, but it is still possible to dissect them and see what went wrong. Every character has a personal motivation to move the story in certain directions. Of them who are selfish, there's a range from evil to good. This is fine.

She was back in BW and everything. But HotS was different. It wasn't about gaining power. The ORIGINAL goal was merely to use the swarm to deal with Mengsk and then walk away. Even after the primal transformation Kerrigan was still thinking that, to some degree. It was only by the time of Skygeirr that she saw otherwise.

You hit the nail, hard, again.

The main problem here is she's not willing to see any good intents in anyone else. This would be consistent with the way she acted towards Zeratul in Whispers of Oblivion. To her, everyone is just too stupid.

This is true. Not a problem but a character's way to be. On top of that, she trusts no one.

Her being a "hero" probably roots out of the production mistakes of HotS, but she was still intended to be an anti-hero. For basic entertainment, anti-heroes are also made likable for the audience (specially when the story comes from their POV).

Honestly, that there's a division between people in favor or against Kerrigan's character proves she was wrote well. There's enough doubt in there to question her as a character and polarize her role as shades of grey rather than black or white. Again, wanting her dead at this point is still a moral judgment.

I do not agree with her being the galactic savior or her idiotic decisions, but she is not a flawed character. At the most, she is the character you hate or love in the story.