When have you Rooted For the Empire?

I can understand why people tend to hate how pragmatic characters and decisions get short end of the stick but the other end just as jarring. Still, I understand why people tend to love these characters as they seem to have the pragmatic and practical solutions to these problems that may even save lives. There is a reason why people love characters like Kreia and Spock.

"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."

The way I see it, there's at least three ways pragmatism gets a raw deal in fiction. For one, it's a quick and efficient way to resolve problems, so unless the actual plot is tight by itself, most of the drama would be lost. Second, action stories in particular revolve around violent situations, wherein the practical attitude isn't exactly PG-friendly - a single-minded efficient fighter or tactician is scary, and so is much more often used as an antagonist. But like I said, whenever such characters are on the hero side, like Snake Eyes for instance, they invariably become fan favorites, being pretty much the only guys whose attitude matches the given premise.

Finally, there's the intentional morality plays where ruthless efficiency and use of force is to be disparaged for its own sake - and that's not such a bad thing, but the story has to support it. For instance, I rooted for Marcus in Star Trek Into Darkness, not because I'm a fan of the regular Star Trek cliche of the corrupt admiral, but because his stance - that the Klingons are a threat and the Federation must be prepared to match their strength - was never disproved in-story. Instead, the only Klingons seen onscreen were exactly as confrontational and unwilling to negotiate as he figured.

In general, this paradox of an aesop is pretty annoying - you have uncompromising enemies, unrepentant vicious killers, but the heroes aren't supposed to go an extra mile to deal with them, because... reasons. For every attempt at criticizing the logic that the ends justify the means, there's the more solid counterpoint that the circumstances necessitate the methods. Don't want broken eggs - don't order an omelet. Don't want a story where the pragmatic solution is unwholesome - don't make it so that such unwholesomeness would be pragmatic in the first place.

I generally tend to root for the good guys (I'm a hopeful kind of guy, and like good to win and evil to be punished), but I even I get in on the act sometimes.

Not a big fan of Warhammer 40k, but I first got introduced to it playing Battlefleet Gothic, where the friend who introduced me to it insisted he got to play the Empire, so I got to play Chaos. And I just like Chaos better, at least in that game. Their ships are almost as durable as Imperial ships, and move slightly faster, so they're slightly more maneuverable, and that edge can really work for you if you play it right. And as I read more about the setting, and realized there really isn't anything that even remotely resembles a good guy, I figured "frell it. . . why settle for the lesser evil?"

Wilson Fisk in Daredevil (the Netflix series.) Less so on first watch, but as I watched it a few more times, I really began to see how his plan might, long-term, actually be better for Hell's Kitchen than what Daredevil is doing. I still liked seeing Daredevil win in the end, but there's a span of time pretty early on in the first season where it really looks like Fisk's endgame might well be both gentrifying Hell's Kitchen and taking down all the organized crime figures he's been working with to achieve that end.

For very complicated reasons, Skynet in Terminator. Not because I think all humans should be exterminated, but because I think the eventual victory of John Connor and the Resistance paints a much more hopeful picture for mankind in general than the way we're going right now. So in basically any Terminator film where the stated goal is to stop Skynet/Judgement Day from ever happening, I'm rooting for Skynet to pull through and get invented anyway.

Pretty much literally rooting for the Empire long about the New Jedi Order in the Star Wars Legends EU. I like the New Jedi Order books alot, but the New Republic had been proven so massively incompetent by that time that I was almost hoping for a resurgent, more benevolent Galactic Empire to pick up the pieces and stop the Yuuzhan Vong.

Yeah, coupled with the Star Trek admirals, it really seems sci-fi has a deficiency of reasonable authority figures on the upper floors. Similarly, the problem with the Empire, especially in the new canon, is that the only thing bad about it is high level officials deliberately going out of their way to make people's lives miserable, with no rhyme or reason whatsoever. Even in a franchise where the villains' usual motivation stems from the magical force that makes angry people evil, it's farcical to imagine any government system functioning like that. At least the old canon had institutionalized racism, which is a realistically bad policy. For the moment, though, the situation is all but cartoonish. I really hope Rogue One fleshes things out a bit.

And opinions about how BOTH Law and Chaos ended being hiper assholes with a very ocassional talk in SMT?.

Law, before the choice: We can create peace, just follow God and be a Nice Guy, we need kill demons and humans who work with demons, but this make sense, right?. After the lock: Brainwash everyone, genocide. Yaaay.

Chaos: Lets get freedom, is the real nature of us, just destroy God´s control and be strong, we can survive it. Please, is hard but the freedom had value. After the lock: Lets kill the weak willed ones!!!.

Neutral: Balance, peace and freedom. We´re nice, after the lock: Earn Your Happy Ending.

This same patron is working for a entire franchise, with very few variations from time to time.

Watch me destroying my country

It seems as thought that it tried to add moral ambiguity and moral dilemma but it failed.

"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."

I had a defence for the genocide of Tokyo in the Law path of SMT IV, i mean Flynn (the MC) and Merkabah (a angel) comit suicide and destroy Tokyo but...they kill all demons, and now the Kingdom of Mikado can rise and be a nice country, the angels are dead and now the Law who will rise is the Law of people, a Lawful people controlling themselves. For the eternity, maybe a city as Tokyo is a worthy sacrifice (and Tokyo was a Wretched Hive).

After the "reveals" (cof cof retcons cof cof) of SMT IV FINAL?. Nop, the angels were liers, they will slave the entire Mikado and be resurrected by YHWH.

Also, the Chaos ending, nop Now both Merkabah and Lucifer are working for YHWH, God Is Evil so lets kill God. (AKA: IV FINAL make all the original SMT IV completely pointless)

edited 24th Feb '16 12:12:44 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

Can't speak for SMT specifically, but yeah, that sort of thing is generally bothersome to encounter, especially in serialized fiction where the affected characters continue to be used. For instance, Amanda Waller of the DCU can be one of the most complex characters in comics altogether... when she's not a manipulative bitch for its own sake, lest her necessarily evil designs start seeming a bit too reasonable in a perpetually threatened world. As a result, any story where she shows up becomes little more than filler leading up to her sudden but inevitable betrayal, so that the heroes may be proven right...ly self-righteous. Say what you will about megalomaniacs wanting to take over the world, but at least they're consistent.

I have to agree, sometimes a lot of heroes are a bit too reliant on Moral Luck. Some can be at least considered Laser-Guided Karma, but it comes off jaded if their own decision looked incredibly priggish and narrow minded until some twist of luck brought down the argument.

...SMT make it a lot too.

In SMT IV, Law route make you comite genocide in Tokyo, the Chaos route made you flood with demons both Tokyo and Mikado (a kingdom where no one knows fight sans the Samurai)

Neutral route made you kill the deities and angels who protect Tokyo, and bring the people of Mikado to Tokyo (who is still filled with demons, and falled into anarchy after their Leader died -to be fair, their leader deserve died.) and Destroy Mikado with the help of Masakado (who is a bit of a Japanese Nationalist, but the game never acknowledges it).

So, now you have demons running arround for Tokyo, the Kingdom of Mikado is gone and now a entire nation has lost their homes and are in a new zone filled with dangers. Lucifer is gone, but that means who the demons are still running and now without a leader.

Next scene: People and named NPC talking about their hopes in future. (forgot who the biggest chance of get rid of demons is trust in the MC and his girlfriend killing every single demon in the entire Tokyo)

edited 28th Feb '16 5:42:23 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

Reading about opinions of SMT.

No, this don´t sound complex, this sound as have two strawmen killing each others and the MC being the Only Sane Man, how having extremists fighting you because you want stop them for killing the entire world is "morally ambiguous"?

This is simple. So simple who....

I just go and follow Law, the path of Utilitarism, religion and The Needs Of Many, i just don´t care for genocide and brainwashing, is all fault of the game for made the options so absurd and laughable.

Watch me destroying my country

As a fan of shooters, strategies and city sims, I find it fascinating how the proper play-style for such games equates almost invariably to villainy in fiction, albeit usually pragmatic villainy. In dramatic storytelling, the army employing discipline and superior technology is usually antagonistic, so that the heroes' all but suicidal Hollywood tactics may succeed by virtue of dramatic improbability. Similarly, sim games are all about managing practical resources and not bothering with ideology, which occasionally entails demolishing a few house blocks so as to build a corporate office and balance the economy. Name one story where that sort of thing isn't portrayed as unambiguously villainous, and invariably deconstructed as an act of pure greed by the resident petty strawman.

In general, utilitarianism and pragmatism are regarded as villainous traits. Likely because they'd rob most low-quality fiction from the cheap soapy drama it tends to employ; but moreover, because fiction frequently relies on narrative intent overriding logic, so if a story has a message to share, the rules of reality itself will bend to accommodate it. As a result, however, any time the Villain Has a Point, the audience - y'know, people living in practical reality - will likely support him for it, even if, or especially if he's later strawmanned.

Utilitarism is all about maximizing happiness and reducing suffering. Is the closer ideology to Lawful Good IRL. The bad thing is falling in the extreme and ended as a Extreme Utilitarism who don't think of people as well...people. Honestly, i'm not so angry with the idea, take every idea to the extreme just can show the bad and nasty things about it, we're just humans.

In SMT, normally the Law aligment is about three things, Religious Faith, Obedience to the authority and Collectivism, sacrifice the individual fredoom for the sake of the group.

Chaos is about freedom, individualism, alternative spiritual faiths (this is why they are siding with demons and forgotten deities), also, naturalism, progress as individual and creativity.

Neutral is just try to mix both.

Sound nice put in this way, right? Honestly,i can see the good points in Chaos, but in a post apocalyptic world filled with demons, i´d just go, fight demons and try to mantain society, the freedom is secondary. so, Law. The Messians are mostly Nice Guys (sure, they are a bit too conservative, but i´d prefer the conservative grandpa over a cultist who think who demons killing humans is good because is the will of the nature).

But....

ATLUS: EXTREMIST IS BAD! AND SIDING WITH ONE IDEAL AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU AN EXTREMIST!.

The Law leaders, the angels and God are the root of the apocalypse, God is the Bigger Bad, the messians start killing people and innofensive demons just because "God say it". The angels show up and act as Tautological Templars and kill innocent citizents because "they are against the will of God" (Note: At least 70% of the deads are one type of Innocent Bystander who keep himself neutral.)

Chaos? They forgot about the freedom and now are supporting brutal, nasty demons. But even then, Lucifer can have some Pet the Dog and the nasty demons? They are victims of the tyranny of God.

Neutral?. Just the route with most extras, killing both sides and keep the bodycount low. Because Law usually involve genocide because the self-righterous angels just hate mankind unless they start to pray them. Chaos usually just send super demons and kill lots of people.

Neutral is always the Earn your bittersweet ending. Because Humans Are Special and they can stop temporally the demons and angels.

Plus, usually the aligment reps are just strawmen. One time are: Lets help people! and other are Lets destroy this city for the glory of God!,

edited 12th Mar '16 6:27:22 PM by KazuyaProta

Watch me destroying my country

How would people have reacted differently if the Law and Chaos sides are presented as extremists from the very start?

Probable nothing, now we're Genre Sawvy enough.

Honestly, Kaneko say who he wanted be the ultimate Punk franchise, This is why the Law side sucks. Now, i start to lose respect to Kaneko.

PD: A game talk About how humans are the root of their own suffering, but actually is just who God Is Evil and he want to make humans suffer only to feel important. The humans are víctims.

Watch me destroying my country

I guess that the reason to the dislike of utilitarism is because, resuming, the "cold" in The Cold Equation means "callous" and callousness is associated with evil and villainy.

Oftentimes, yes. And yet there are fan favorites like Snake Eyes or Spock, who are popular precisely for acting rationally and efficiently in violent or otherwise stressful situations. Even Boba Fett owes his reputation to the mere impression of being a smooth operator. If anything, it's the emotionally over-reactive characters that aren't too well received, berserk blood knights notwithstanding.

My observation is that, for creative or editorial reasons, poorly written stories try and force drama where realistically wouldn't be, and avoid it where it very well should. Acting-wise, there's nothing particularly dramatic about, say, a standard starship scuffle - sure, the risks are there, but a non-mildly military crew would barely emote beyond the occasional dull surprise, because situations like these aren't really conductive to emotional over-reaction. Meanwhile, the reasons for such a fight could easily be the basis for a full-blown military thriller. Yet what do you get in practice - explosive instrumentation, officers barking orders, screaming warriors all around... and the reason usually amounts to some alien supervillain trying to take over the galaxy, and the captain's ship is conveniently the only one able to interfere in time.

Consequently, even the slightest aversion of such cliches gets all the attention, and with good reason - it's not only more realistic, but also raises the drama far above the soapy overreaction of space operas and superhero brawls. To me at least, drama is rooted in the character motivations, not the physical execution thereof. The goody two-shoes who never crosses some arbitrary line and is always the unprepared underdog in a fight is not inherently more moral than the schemer loading up for bear when necessary.

The stuff you described in the second paragraph may be due to Viewers Are Morons plus lazy writing - it's easier to toss in a whole lot of explosives and screaming than to carefully plan out the events leading to the battle.

(At the"Haruka and Michiru are misunderstood Pragmatic Heroines for killing Hotaru"), I have a loooooooooooooooooooooooooong bone to pick with that. At least in the anime rendition of that arc.

Discord: Waido X 255#1372 If you cant contact me on TV Tropes do it here.

Lets hear it. I'm curious now.

One Strip! One Strip!

That's partially the case, yes. Other times, it's a deliberate creative decision, like with how Federation ships in Star Trek don't have cloaking devices, because according to Gene Roddenberry, "heroes don't sneak around". Apparently, tactical advantages aren't heroic. DS9 went to great lengths taking that sort of pseudo-idealism apart, and not without good reason.

(For that matter, Star Trek in general frequently tries to vouch for pacifism and diplomacy... while making sure just about every non-Federation major alien culture is almost entirely made up of vaudevillian mustache-twirlers or brutish thugs. Mixed messages much?)

In a similar vein, whenever some necessary weasel of a popular franchise is deconstructed, responses range from actual reconstructions addressing the criticism... to blatant strawmanning, so as to make sure that the complainer is always wrong. For instance, every time superhero stories mention a registration act - a rather reasonable idea when dealing with supernaturally empowered behemoths and self-appointed enforcers of justice - it's invariably for the idea to be condemned, no matter how many leaps of logic it takes. The big two superhero films coming out this year both revolve around the issue of accountability, but you can bet dollars to rubles that the conclusion will be the one enforcing the status quo - namely, that anonymous civilians are perfectly justified in operating military-grade weaponry (or inherent biological equivalents thereof), frequently in foreign states, and that anyone trying to curb such heroics is totally badwrong.

As a result of all this, a lot of time you get villains that simply make more sense than the heroes, like Starfleet Admirals supporting militarization in the face of a blatantly hostile galaxy, or civil institutions unwilling to keep on paying the hero insurance fees. There's no small amount of irony in how traditional capes are lionized for their antics, while government-sponsored heroes doing the same sort of work (only without the PG-rated restrictions) are invariably presented as shady and sociopathic at best.

edited 18th Mar '16 3:24:08 AM by indiana404

^The superhero registration act thing is more of an American reaction to the idea then anything else. Being required to inform the government about something that often the person has no control over having (as opposed to using it) is going to ping the personal freedom radar no matter who is in charge of the government.

It would probably be presented a lot differently if the superhero genre had gotten started in Europe instead of America.

edited 18th Mar '16 8:30:51 AM by ObsidianFire

The no-cloaking thing is relatively similar, in a way. It's about painting an honest portrait of the Federation, who doesn't spy on people who don't know it. It's a bit like personal privacy, but on a much larger scale, and from the other point of view.

Check out my fanfiction!

The problem with cloaking in Star Trek is that other nations still use it, and there are few known countermeasures. Effectively, nothing stops the Klingons or Romulans from snooping about in Federation space, while the Federation willingly cripples itself. Kinda reminds me of the gun-free zone debate - claiming a moral high ground actually isn't an effective deterrent against external abuse, and may even increase the risks of harm.

As for the superhero situation, the registration act I'm talking about is not the usual mutant deal, but particularly the Civil War-style issue of openly using supernatural abilities, ostensibly for the enforcement of justice. In these terms, I doubt even Americans would openly accept vigilantes with no oversight. Most likely, capes would function closest to how the Defenders of the Earth did, with open identities and designated headquarters. As for Europe, you might say we prefer our heroes be licensed to kill, while vigilantism is more of a team effort anyway.

There is a great deal of irony, by the way, in how vigilantes like the Punisher are derided for being straightforward serial killer killers in contrast with more (improbably) restrained capes like Batman, when Batman himself started out much more brutal, with a secret identity in place precisely because his actions were unambiguously illegal. Blame WWII and the sugarcoated Silver Age for making that style of vigilantism seem wholesome to begin with.

The whole "open identities and designated headquarters" is part of the reasons people have problems with it though. For people with the influence of Tony Stark or Captain America, it's not a problem. For people without the type of influence who just want to live normal lives even with superpowers though? That's where the Fridge Logic starts breaking down.

'Cause the supervillians have a great incentive for getting a hold of the list of people with super-powers and making problems for people on the list. And it also sets up a setting where the only use people see for having superpowers is to use them to fight crime/deal out justice or the opposite of that and that's got it's own problems.

For one 'verse's version of how this type of thing went down, you should check out Literature/Curveball. Superheros are those that operate with government approval. Supervillians are anyone that operates without it. This has resulted in superheroes starting their own micronations to get out of government oversite and the public not telling the government how all the massive property damage happened to keep the government from making warrants for the people who are actually dealing with the crime in the area. It's also resulted in the police who know what's actually going on purposely overlooking evidence so that they don't bring in unauthorized superheros who are actually doing a good job. And yes, the novel has a lot of Grey-and-Grey Morality in it...