When have you Rooted For the Empire?

Well if you sit around long enough, it's entirely possible to start thinking about the motives of the character, and start wondering if what they say motivates them is really what it is.

That and the fact that Mankind can find the bad in everything (we can find the good too, but it's a lot harder), and that damn near any motive or action can be twisted to be inherently selfish or evil in one way or another.

I do agree though. While I've found a lot of Indiana's thoughts to be interesting, I can't help but feel he's trying a little too hard to twist the heroes motives to make them look worse (then again, we've been doing that in fiction for a long time now as well).

Then again, maybe he's not really trying at all, and all this stuff is really there, and the rest of us are just ignoring it.

One Strip! One Strip!

I suppose the difference is in the overall subtlety and sustained suspension of disbelief in the work itself. The Star Wars films had bad guys blowing up planets for no good reason, sure enough - but the Star Wars films also had poor dialogue, convoluted politics, and dozens of plot holes which better writers - Timothy Zahn in particular - fully exploited to add much more complexity to the story, subverting or outright inverting a lot of the messages of the original work. Rather than continue abusing Campbellian archetypes, they did take things at face value - things like the economy and social structure needed for the story to take place at all - and the result was markedly different from the initial hammy space opera where morality comes preemptively color-coded.

Similarly, Brad Bird's films all seem to explore the same themes of special individuals versus conformist societies... but some representations just don't suit that purpose. Superheroics already come with enough necessary weasels to fill three kennels; tacking mid-life crises and self-actualization issues to it was even more grating. At plain face value, however, I'll still take my chances with the high-tech glory hound who plans to eventually open-source his designs, rather than the average glory hounds who are apparently just as likely to die from a wardrobe-related accident as to save anyone in need. Never mind that, if Jack-Jack is any indication, you never know when one of them is going to go nuclear or something, and the rest of society will have no defense prepared for it.

As for the Middle Earth tales, I normally take them as Tolkien intended - a mythical account of ancient events, like The Iliad. Thing is, some of my ancestors were in The Iliad - as antagonists (though not quite villains, since the story is quite even-handed morally) - so I mostly take pleasure in interpreting the story as I would a genuine myth, naturally Written by the Winners. The blatant hate sink portrayals were more of a film thing that irked me, since at least The Hobbit book paid little attention to the Laketown Master at all.

I usually do try and take matters at face value, as the story is more immersive that way. But when things just don't add up, and the plot never bothers to acknowledge anything of the sort, the resulting questions, probable answers, and ultimate conclusions, may well be far from what the writers intended, even as they still stem from the story they created.

edited 23rd Jan '15 2:30:21 PM by indiana404

I suppose one way to see it is as a failure of Willing Suspension of Disbelief. If you see the characters not as people but as the writers' sockpuppets, then they aren't really doing anything wrong. The Empire blows up Alderaan not because they're evil but because the script says they have to.

But then again whats the point in rooting for a sockpuppet?

The same as in rooting for a wrestling heel or a B-movie slasher - you want to see more of them doing what they do best. Personal style and charisma do appear to be unaffected by loss of suspension of disbelief.

edited 23rd Jan '15 5:07:59 PM by indiana404

Not sure those are examples of loss of Willing Suspension of Disbelief. I'd rather say that a great many people who enjoy them do it because they accept them for what they are, in sort of an, "I don't care if everything else about them is stupid and bad; they're awesome enough to get a pass," kind of way. It's still accepting their character. Of course, you can enjoy them on a meta level, but then you're probably outside the scope of Rooting for the Empire as well.

Check out my fanfiction!

When you are rooting for villian that way is villian is cool, or to put it mor simple: you do not care for the history, which consider that ficion is about having a good time is complete aceptable, and many people just want a cool villian doing cool thing before they fall and the day is saved(because the can do their cool stuff)

But rooting for the empire is consider them having moral point that overcome the protagonist, which is pretty diferent

About Indiana, I think is concern about what concept people use for the antagonist: like Avatar who use a caricature against their mary-sue-topia, the empire as they said is space conservative which is pretty bad.

Still is why kick the dog is such a necesary trope for villian, while some villins are evil by themselve like racist(bioshock infinite, nazis in every single game and movie) other are too bad by our standar to become something else(for example you would never see pedophile or rapist as their hero, because not matter what they do their empathy will never resonate) BUT some of them are just trait that dosent mean anything, like militaristic or conservative or even marrowminded, while this is bad many of this concept can be questioning, like syndro who superpower can do a real lasting chance while mr increible just benefict him and others by battling supervillian, its quite acomplishment, and with a few token gestures, the history could easyly be play in his favor.

of course doing that is outright cheating, after all I think indiana could be saying the same thing if a super science want to be put down by glory superheroe....

or that is my take anyway

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Like I said, the issue usually turns up whenever morality is based on nationality or even species, or if it revolves around a fantastic aesop which may not necessarily elicit the same response when actually taken at face value. Strawmanning and puppy-kicking just make it more obvious.

maybe, but whatever you want it or not, there are moment when the villian have to do something well....villianous, of course it dosent matter when you are and orc,a nazi or racist seen it have become a example of villian, hell there two tendecy I have: one is the idea that if you dont fight the resistent then you are sell out or a coward for not doing the right thing, it understimed how deep this thing need to be thought, same with fantasy chararter who usually are just molded into 21 thinking in order of not bother the audience

"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"

Obviously the Empire from Star Wars. I liked the Rebels, too, but I REFUSE to acknowledge the fact something as powerful and organized as the Empire were defeated by a bunch of punkasses and living teddy bears.

SUPER POOPER SCOOPERS ARE JUST LEGENDEH!

To be fair nobody thought the colonists would the British either.

"We are just like Irregular Data. And that applies to you too, Ri CO. And as for you, Player... your job is to correct Irregular Data."

Not quite right. That's why the literary term is antagonist, rather than villain - basically meaning the guy working to oppose the protagonist for whatever reason, rather than the guy that the audience is supposed to boo and detest.

The Empire trying to maintain control against the rebels' efforts is antagonistic; that's not inherently good or bad, and writers like Timothy Zahn have explored plenty of moral facets to the conflict. Stormtroopers killing Luke's relatives was brutal, but it also hits the grey areas of necessary response to national security leaks, especially during an ongoing civil war. Tarkin blowing up planets for giggles was villainous, but it also had little logical reasoning beyond giving people an excuse to cheer when he gets blown up in turn. Consequently, the guy himself isn't particularly popular, even among Empire fans. The old canon even had an eponymous doctrine which was basically stupid evil as a government policy. It too was villainous... and also unconvincing and selectively ignored even before Disney wiped the slate.

Pretty sure blowing up a planet was to demonstrate to other star systems that the Empire was taking the rebel threat seriously. And by seriously, that the Empire was willing to destroy a planet to take the rebels out. Given that the tactic could have worked well enough to shut down the rebels for good if they'd actually been on the planet... I really don't think that counts as blowing up a planet For the Evulz as there's an actual reason for it. Granted, the reason might be Disproportionate Retribution, but that's different then just having someone blow something up to prove that they're evil.

There's that too, though the guy still suffers volumes of flanderization in other works, up to landing a Star Destroyer on a peaceful protest for no reason whatsoever. Then again, it'd be quite an endeavor to list all the ways less creative writers have tried to sell the Empire as the epitome of all evil, regardless of whether or not it made sense or had any internal consistency altogether.

I'd be curious to know what it would take for you to accept that a character is evil because they are evil, and not because there's a creator arbitrarily decided who are the good guys and who are the bad guys...

'cause in all honesty, it sounds like you're willing to excuse the bad stuff characters do "because the creator casted them in that role" but not the good stuff...

I think bad guys are easier to excuse because at the end of the day, they're gonna get punished anyway. The writer knows what they've done and won't let them get away with it. The only exceptions tend to be those that get a Heel–Face Turn and risk being Easily Forgiven, though that defies the point anyway. People Root for the Empire because it's gonna lose.

The heroes actions can be more insufferable however because they usually still have the story on their side and win anyway. Usually the worst they get for it is a bit of turbulence in between par odd unique cases (some slapstick cases like Bugs Bunny and Jerry could actually 'lose', amusingly enough some of these weren't 'fair' losses either).

edited 2nd Mar '15 7:54:28 PM by Psi001

I've said it before, it's a matter of subtlety and consistency. And it's also a matter of how "evil" is only a functional definition in a religious framework - as in, who goes to Hell post mortem, or gets to cast spontaneous Inflict Major Wounds in D&D. Consequently, I find that rooting for the villain is usually based on more practical concerns. Given the franchise's political underpinnings, it's like stating that the entire US government should have been forcibly dissolved following the chemical desolation of Vietnam - not an unwarranted sentiment, but not the brightest idea either. To that effect, could the Empire be called evil - sure, why not, if you're into that sort of mentality. Is it still the better choice for a galactic government than what both the Republic and the rebels had to offer - unfortunately yes, though having that impression may be a matter of cultural priorities and experiences. Of course, Darth Vader still ending up as a happy Force Ghost would ultimately mean he in particular wasn't deemed evil after all - y'know, despite all the killing he does in the prequels and tie-ins. But that's the Force for ya.

edited 3rd Mar '15 1:35:37 AM by indiana404

Anakin/Vader as a Force Ghost makes even less sense given the prequels retconning it into being a discovery made by Qui-Gon Jinn, meaning that there is no way that Anakin could ever have learned it. But that's a digression.

edited 3rd Mar '15 5:28:49 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Maybe not so much of a digression. Particularly in a long-running multi-author franchise, and particularly in prequels, it's a valid criticism to say a character was derailed by bad writing, rather than just take things at face value. In the OT, Vader was a no-detailed-atrocities-specified servant of the Emperor, and under Tarkin's command during Alderaan so not responsible for that either. Thus, his redemption and ascension didn't feel forced or undeserved. Seeing him slaughter children was neither necessary as an element of his fall, nor did it mesh well with him being welcomed to the glowy ghost flock in the end. Instead, it made the other deceased Jedi seem even more callous, as if passing a Detect Evil check was all it took to restore his moral standing.

Still, the effect goes both ways. Sequel books and comics have occasionally been considered as fascist apologetics, since the Empire rebuilds and gains public favor in its own right, while the main antagonists become the scary dogmatic aliens popular with conservative military sci-fi writers. Personally, all I want is for villains to not be blatant complete monsters or hate sinks, since it's both predictable and pretty boring to see in an otherwise good story.

edited 3rd Mar '15 6:04:26 AM by indiana404

Eh, I'm not sure that anyone has ever praised the Star Wars series for the quality or depth of its story; it's a fairly juvenile heroic fantasy, not intended to be taken as some dramatic magnum opus.

The heroes are heroic, the villains are villainous, and nobody questions the underlying moral assumptions too much.

edited 3rd Mar '15 6:25:43 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well, Obsidian made a valiant attempt. But yeah, even when the Empire eventually joined the good guys, it still didn't make for much ambiguity. Not that I mind - I root for the Empire in particular, not just any villain the story comes up with.

edited 3rd Mar '15 6:35:36 AM by indiana404

I'm actually more of the opinion that it's pretty hard to be Rooting for the Empire in a Black-and-White Morality work by trying to justify what The Empire is doing as if it's a Grey-and-Gray Morality work. At some level that's just distorting what The Empire's motives are and isn't all that useful for discussing what the canon reasons are for the characters to do things. If you're rooting for them because (or in spite) of the the fact that they're presented as evil, that's one thing. But rooting becasue you think they had motives they aren't presented as having sounds a lot like Alternative Character Interpretation to me.

To be honest, it sounds like you have less of a problem with how The Empire is presented and more of a problem with how prevalent the Black-and-White Morality system is in fiction...

The alternate character interpretation did use to be canon by way of Zahn's books - long story short, Thrawn and Palpatine had foreseen a massive alien invasion that the Republic was woefully unprepared to fight off; so Palpatine engineered a civil war to ensure the necessary level of militarization and efficient centralized authority. Dealing with the Jedi was more of a bonus score settling between rival religious cults. (Zahn wasn't big on the "all Jedi, all the time" attitude with regard to high-level politics, even during the prequel era.)

Per the movies themselves, I used to view the Rebels as the intended heroic revolutionaries. Once the prequels set in however, turns out they were actually a counter-revolutionary force funded by disgruntled aristocrats, trying to restore a system that had failed on every level. Moreover, the earlier Confederacy shared most of their political leanings, but was instead vilified by default, so it really seemed like the story was simply heavily biased in favor of the Jedi and their allies-of-the-moment, regardless of any consistent political or moral underpinnings. Note how even Luke himself reaches maturity by defying Yoda and Kenobi's attempt to basically turn him into an assassin against his own father, never mind leaving his actual friends for dead.

Yeah, I really miss the Zahn days. JJ's got some pretty big shoes to fill, that's for sure. All in all, the original story actually went quite far to subvert the fairy-tail black and white morality it's usually treated as having, the above incident being only the most visible example. More likely that the franchise suffers flanderization when adapted for kid-aimed cash-cow tie-ins, leading to less than subtle heroes and villains.

edited 3rd Mar '15 9:28:52 AM by indiana404

Indiana, that argument makes no sense. Yes, the Rebel Alliance was flawed. But that doesn't change the fact that the Empire was, from its inception, a fascist state more interested in control than actually running a society. Its head of states are two Sith Lords. Its regional governors are pressured to succeed at any cost despite public opinion or risk to population or personnel. And what they're expected to succeed at is simply acquiring more control for the Empire. They control people to acquire more control.

We see how much the Empire sucks in the first movie before they even blow up a planet. They killed Luke's aunt and uncle for being only tangentially related to the surrounding conflict; their only fault being owning two droids. The Rebel Alliance was right for wanting to get rid of them, and it really doesn't matter that they weren't themselves perfect. The Empire wasn't a government that could argue its policies was for the good of anything. The ones who actually believed in the Empire's righteousness were at best useful idiots.

You can call that author tracting if you like, but it's established from the inception of the franchise. Not every person or group needs to be fleshed out with a brighter side. Some groups/causes/movements are just bad.

edited 4th Mar '15 5:31:58 PM by KingZeal

Which is explicitly denied by Lucas himself, plainly commenting that Palpatine's stated desire for "peace" was honest, even if misguided and brought forth by the most extreme means. And like I said, the old canon had plenty of Imperial noble demons and ultimately culminated with the reformed Empire as part of a Triumvirate alongside the Galactic Alliance - since the New Republic barely lasted longer than the original Empire.

Honestly, the entire movie franchise is built on the idea of the most fallen and corrupted of people - one of the Sith Lords themselves - finding redemption, literally "fleshed out with a brighter side" given his pale face under the helmet. Considering Luke's similar cosmetic progression - white at first, grey later, and black with a lighter shade in the end, it really doesn't get any more obvious than that.

edited 4th Mar '15 5:58:37 PM by indiana404

Except Lucas is a known Lying Creator. He has also said that the Dark Side is flat out evil, and that there's no such thing as using the Dark Side for good purposes. He also said that the Emperor was intended from the beginning to be "the ultimate personification of evil".

And even if he ''wasn't', that doesn't change the fact of. Most Nazis thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler himself probably thought he was doing "the right thing". But that doesn't change that he was a monstrous human being and that the Nazis were at best situational sociopaths.

We're also not talking about people who redeem themselves. We're talking about people doing evil and are in the act of doing evil. Sure, Luke Skywalker redeemed one guy, but he sure as shit cut down a lot more than that. It's all well and good that Vader redeemed himself in the end, but you can't just point at that one success and argue that it dismisses black and white morality (or, at best, a darker shade of grey). At the most optimistic, the movies demonstrate that not everyone can be redeemed and some are either evil or close enough to the same effect.