Heroic Empire vs. Villainous Rebels

[GenericGuy]

Anyone know of any books/show/movies/etc.... with the Empire as the good guys and rebels as fanatics? I'm just getting bored with this cliché.

[chiasaur11]

Technically, Warhammer 40K might count.

Okay, so technically the empire in question is hideously, unbelievably evil.

What it's fighting is worse.

Pleasant place.

[Jaros]

And the guys fighting those guys are even worse.

And the guys those guys are probably fleeing from? Hoo boy

[Flickerdart]

Well, I suppose Robin Hobb's Assassin's Apprentice counts insofar as the kingdom is the good guys, and then they get their ass handed to them by pirates. But that's not really the same thing.

[Coidzor]

So basically anything with terrorists or terrorism in it? :smalltongue:

[Mr. Scaly]

Well...apparently it's pretty much stated that the Varden of 'Eragon' were formed as an instrument of revenge against the empire rather than a genuine attempt to improve life for all...and that Galbatorix is only resorting to evil deeds because the Varden started raising Hell in the first place, and everyone admits that life was going smoothly before that, so...

[Dr.Epic]

V for Vendetta, the comic not the movie. The reader shows the sympathetic of government and the murderous Codename V.

[chiasaur11]

V for Vendetta, the comic not the movie. The reader shows the sympathetic of government and the murderous Codename V.

Eh.

To steal a famous quote "Now we are all sons of bitches."

V was a slightly better option from most angles and a lot worse from the rest. The government was basically Nazis, V was a terrorist, whole business was unpleasant.

Some of the narrative structure being looked for might be found in Discworld stories set in Ankh Morpork. I mean, it's not an empire (Vetinari makes sure of that) but it is ruled by a tyrant with absolute power.

[Talkkno]

Technically, Warhammer 40K might count.

Okay, so technically the empire in question is hideously, unbelievably evil.

.

...............The Imperium is a place of staggering diveristy, to typify it as any one thing is a straggering mistake. The Imperium is made of many tiny fiefdoms spread arcoss the stars, most paying their tithes and largely left alone by the Adetpus Terra.

[Cubey]

While not exactly an empire, the good guys in Metal Slug series are fighting the rebels, who are villainous.

Yes, Metal Slug has plot.

[king.com]

While not exactly an empire, the good guys in Metal Slug series are fighting the rebels, who are villainous.

Yes, Metal Slug has plot.

My mind has been blow by that last statement.

[JonestheSpy]

Eh.

To steal a famous quote "Now we are all sons of bitches."

V was a slightly better option from most angles and a lot worse from the rest. The government was basically Nazis, V was a terrorist, whole business was unpleasant.


What the heck are you talking about? You've got a lone hero fighting a Nazi regime, and you regard him as "terrorist", so he's not much better? Might as well call Robin Hood a terrorist.

Science Fiction Demigod Poul Anderson wrote a whole series of books wherein the hero was struggling to preserve the Terran Empire: The Dominic Flandry series. The situation was similar to ancient Rome - the interstellar Terran Empire was corrupt and decadent in many ways, but still preferable to the war, chaos, and ensuing Dark Ages that would follow. Sometimes Flandry fought against human rebels, sometimes against alien rivals of the Empire.

[Mando Knight]

Clone Wars-era Star Wars almost counts. It's a Republic run by an increasingly more powerful Chancellor who turns out to be the Evil Emperor Grumpy Face of the Rebel era, but they use predecessors of the Imperial equipment (and some Rebel equipment, in the case of vehicles such as the ARC-170), and they fight the villainous Separatists run by the fallen Jedi, the evil Count Dooku. (or as Darths and Droids calls him, Count Dookû)

[Marnath]

What the heck are you talking about? You've got a lone hero fighting a Nazi regime, and you regard him as "terrorist", so he's not much better? Might as well call Robin Hood a terrorist.

Science Fiction Demigod Poul Anderson wrote a whole series of books wherein the hero was struggling to preserve the Terran Empire: The Dominic Flandry series. The situation was similar to ancient Rome - the interstellar Terran Empire was corrupt and decadent in many ways, but still preferable to the war, chaos, and ensuing Dark Ages that would follow. Sometimes Flandry fought against human rebels, sometimes against alien rivals of the Empire.

:smallconfused: Robin Hood WAS a terrorist...

[chiasaur11]

What the heck are you talking about? You've got a lone hero fighting a Nazi regime, and you regard him as "terrorist", so he's not much better? Might as well call Robin Hood a terrorist.


Hey, not saying the Nazi types are any good whatsoever. Scum of the Earth, and suchlike.

But we are talking a guy who blew up parliament, who kidnaps people and Stockholms the heck out of them, and who has no long term plans for preventing mass starvation or any of the other consequences, which means a ton of people dead. And some, not all, but some of the folks working for the aforementioned incredibly evil regime were tolerable enough people. Including V's killer. Add in V's whole motive being, possibly, ordinary revenge and the whole thing becomes a bit murky.

Heck, it's one of the most common compliments for Moore's work in this case that he manages a bit of moral ambiguity on the whole thing, despite the villains being, well, Nazi types. Alan Moore himself said that he wanted the whole thing to be a tiny bit open to interpretation.

Of course, the film misses the point entirely.

[Coidzor]

Clone Wars-era Star Wars almost counts. It's a Republic run by an increasingly more powerful Chancellor who turns out to be the Evil Emperor Grumpy Face of the Rebel era, but they use predecessors of the Imperial equipment (and some Rebel equipment, in the case of vehicles such as the ARC-170), and they fight the villainous Separatists run by the fallen Jedi, the evil Count Dooku. (or as Darths and Droids calls him, Count Dookû)

Oh, please. Don't bring those rubes, bumpkins, and simpletons into a discussion of villainy. They were barely antagonists other than Dooku.

And sheesh... His role in it? Gah...:smallyuk:

[Mando Knight]

Oh, please. Don't bring those rubes, bumpkins, and simpletons into a discussion of villainy. They were barely antagonists other than Dooku.

And sheesh... His role in it? Gah...:smallyuk:

They were mostly Evil Corporate Executives crossed with Stupid Corporate Executives. And an army of amusingly idiotic battle drones, a big fat wallet, and an Evil Overlord.

And a cyborg with four arms of whirling laser sword-y death. And bronchitis.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Can't think of one, I can recall a series where the kindly "good guy" scientist turned out to be evil and the "bad guy" scientist turned out to be good. [he was just an arrogant jerk so he came off as evil]

Before that point it was a villainous rebel vs heroic empire. Then the big reveal happens and protagonist and love interest find out they were on the wrong side the whole time
So-So series but brilliantly pulled of twist.

The trick is with the villainous rebels vs the heroic empire won't use those terms.
Also when it comes to bad guys vs good guys typically the good guys are the underdogs, which is easier to pull off if their the rebels.

In Knights of the Old Republic 2, you have the military general trying to pull off a coup against the rightful Queen. Which is about the only time it happens.
The evil general who controls most of the military launches a coup against the government.

[Brewdude]

Malazan Books of the Fallen by Steve Erikson. The first on is Gardens of the Moon.

The Malazan empire is definitely the good guys. Sort of. They are at least the least bad of bad options.

The Black Company by Glen Cook.
Ok, so this empire is much nastier than the Malazans, it's STILL better than the rebel.

Dragon Riders of Pern by Anne McCaffery are definitely where the guys in charge are the good guys.

[Mewtarthio]

Anything under the Tom Clancy brand following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The TV series 24. Really, anything where the bad guys are called "terrorists" (except Die Hard, where the villains are just thieves pretending to be terrorists).

[Jayngfet]

Technically, Warhammer 40K might count.

Okay, so technically the empire in question is hideously, unbelievably evil.

What it's fighting is worse.

Pleasant place.

Actually I remember there being groups of Sensei attacking imperium ships due to being inherently moral or something. They can apparently use the warp without going over to chaos so I'm fairly sure they can recruit psykers and mutants and the like.

They're just isolated pockets, but between them and mentions of opresed mutants rebelling the imperium is still the worst morally.

[Dr.Epic]

What the heck are you talking about? You've got a lone hero fighting a Nazi regime, and you regard him as "terrorist", so he's not much better? Might as well call Robin Hood a terrorist.

Technically yeah, Robin Hood was a terrorist. He still went against the government like V. Not to mention he killed a lot of people, blew up a building and...

Kidnapped and tortured a girl.

[doliest]

What the heck are you talking about? You've got a lone hero fighting a Nazi regime, and you regard him as "terrorist", so he's not much better? Might as well call Robin Hood a terrorist.

Science Fiction Demigod Poul Anderson wrote a whole series of books wherein the hero was struggling to preserve the Terran Empire: The Dominic Flandry series. The situation was similar to ancient Rome - the interstellar Terran Empire was corrupt and decadent in many ways, but still preferable to the war, chaos, and ensuing Dark Ages that would follow. Sometimes Flandry fought against human rebels, sometimes against alien rivals of the Empire.
Hm. I distinctively remember implications that most of the world was in a post-apocolyptic Nuclear Winter brought on likely by the cold war going hot. The U.K. isn't exactly the most self-sufficient place in the best of circumstances, and we've got a man who's stated goal is 'Anarchy,' note that Anarchy is not a good thing, and in a place that's likely barely held together, even the oppressive government suddenly looks better than the mass deaths following the government's collapse.

[Revlid]

Fridge Logic puts the Varden rebellion from Eragon in this category.

[hamishspence]

In David Eddings's The Tamuli series, it's "Heroic Emperor, Villainous Rebels"- though some of the rebels are would-be emperors.

[Cristo Meyers]

Hm. I distinctively remember implications that most of the world was in a post-apocolyptic Nuclear Winter brought on likely by the cold war going hot.

There are two keys to realizing just how big the nuclear exchange was: in a flashback the start is described as "Africa's gone," and Moore later said that "there wouldn't be a world after the kind of nuclear exchange I'd envisioned for that world." England may be prevailing (probably on borrowed time), but everywhere else you'd be lucky if you get Fallout.


The U.K. isn't exactly the most self-sufficient place in the best of circumstances, and we've got a man who's stated goal is 'Anarchy,' note that Anarchy is not a good thing, and in a place that's likely barely held together, even the oppressive government suddenly looks better than the mass deaths following the government's collapse.

Exactly the point. The gov't in charge may be fascists of the worst kind, but they're also the only thing keeping everyone else from starving to death. V's revenge is only going to cause the slow deaths of millions in "The land of do what you will."

[Dr.Epic]

I'm not sure how much this qualifies but Space Mutiny. The rebels are pretty much terrorists rebelling against the lawful commanders of the space ship

[Revlid]

{Scrubbed}

[Weezer]

{Scrubbed}

[Nerd-o-rama]

The original Mobile Suit Gundam. Inept but mostly benign Federation vs. megalomaniac and genocidal "rebels". Notable in that this was in a Japanese kids' show in 1979.

Although pretty much everything but the top leadership of both sides is still quite sympathetic.


Anyway, most of the time when you see evil rebels and a good establishment in fiction, it's because the rebels just want to replace the establishment with ones that have themselves at the top, or the bad guys are terrorists with short-sighted and selfish goals.

[Dr.Epic]

God of War II: Kratos pretty much sends all of Sparta to sack various city states, then he even appears on earth to destroy Rhodes (I'd like to point out the whole point of the first game was to stop Ares from doing that to Athens!). He was told by Athena to stop, and is even zapped of much of his power but he still continues to slaughter innocent lives. Really, what choice did Zeus have not to step in an put an end to Kratos?

[Mewtarthio]

Anyway, most of the time when you see evil rebels and a good establishment in fiction, it's because the rebels just want to replace the establishment with ones that have themselves at the top,

Isn't that what the good rebels usually want to do, too? Heck, the Star Wars rebels (the archetypical "good rebels" of modern fantasy) have it right there in the title: The Alliance to Restore the Republic.

[Dr.Epic]

Isn't that what the good rebels usually want to do, too? Heck, the Star Wars rebels (the archetypical "good rebels" of modern fantasy) have it right there in the title: The Alliance to Restore the Republic.

Just like the Jedi and the Sith. Who's the evil one again? Qui Gon, a supposedly great Jedi constantly used the Force to trick people for his own gain. Not to mention the Jedi forbid any of their kind to marry and love is outlawed. How primitive is that mindset?

[Ravens_cry]

Isn't that what the good rebels usually want to do, too? Heck, the Star Wars rebels (the archetypical "good rebels" of modern fantasy) have it right there in the title: The Alliance to Restore the Republic.
Which was an over-bloated, bureaucratic, corrupt regime anyway, so yeah.

[Reverent-One]

Just like the Jedi and the Sith. Who's the evil one again? Qui Gon, a supposedly great Jedi constantly used the Force to trick people for his own gain.

Oh? His own gain?


Not to mention the Jedi forbid any of their kind to marry and love is outlawed. How primitive is that mindset?

Primitive = evil now?


Which was an over-bloated, bureaucratic, corrupt regime anyway, so yeah.

Which is still better than an oppressive empire, especially since in reforming it they can do so without the corruption and the like.

[Dr.Epic]

Oh? His own gain?

Tricked the gungans or however its spelled to give him a ship. Tricked Waddo for the cash for the pod race and even used the Force to change the dice roll to get Anikin.


Primitive = evil now?

I was comparing it to the ideology of the Dark Ages. Look at how restrictive they were on issues of sex and marriage.

[Reverent-One]

Tricked the gungans or however its spelled to give him a ship. Tricked Waddo for the cash for the pod race and even used the Force to change the dice roll to get Anikin.

Naboo was kinda, you know, being invaded. And the stuff with Watto was so that 1) the mission could be completed, 2) for Anakin's sake. So far nothing for Qui-gon's own gain in there.


I was comparing it to the ideology of the Dark Ages. Look at how restrictive they were on issues of sex and marriage.

That would work better if the restrictions ONLY existed in the dark ages, which is not the case.

[Dr.Epic]

Naboo was kinda, you know, being invaded.

If two Jedi could really make that much of a difference was the invasion really that big?


And the stuff with Watto was so that 1) the mission could be completed, 2) for Anakin's sake. So far nothing for Qui-gon's own gain in there.

Still, it's wrong to cheat someone. Considering all the other ways Qui Gon could have gotten the parts, it was deceitful. He seemed intent on training Anakin even after the Jedi Counsel said no. I'd say it was for some personal reason.


That would work better if the restrictions ONLY existed in the dark ages, which is not the case.

That doesn't make it right. Telling someone how to live their life in terms of love and marriage is still like a dictatorship.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

The animated show Code Geass manages to explore this idea from both sides, and although you've got an evil empire, it's not without its good people, and although you've got rebels, they wind up going into quite questionable territory.

[Reverent-One]

If two Jedi could really make that much of a difference was the invasion really that big?

Considering they did, yes.


Still, it's wrong to cheat someone. Considering all the other ways Qui Gon could have gotten the parts, it was deceitful.

What other methods? They had no money or anything worth trading that they didn't need. And even if you were right, that's still not for his own gain.


He seemed intent on training Anakin even after the Jedi Counsel said no. I'd say it was for some personal reason.

Which would make training Anakin even after the Council said no an action for his own gain, not freeing him in the first place. Then again, he was so insistent on training Anakin because he though Anakin was the Chosen One, not because he's all "Oh I want to train this kid for my sake".


That doesn't make it right. Telling someone how to live their life in terms of love and marriage is still like a dictatorship.

The point I was arguing about was your association of primitive with evil.

[Yora]

I was comparing it to the ideology of the Dark Ages. Look at how restrictive they were on issues of sex and marriage.
This ideology isn't actually from the dark ages, but a much more recent invention. What we think of as "conservative sexual morals" today first came up in the 17th or 18th century.

FreeSpace 2 has two groups of fanatic rebels that oppose the alliance of Humans and Vasudans. And there's really not much that hints that the Alliance is anything but a bunch of genuinly nice guys.

[Coidzor]

If two Jedi could really make that much of a difference was the invasion really that big?
If James Bond is able to stop the villain, was their plot really that villainous? :smalltongue:

Also, since I can't really discuss them on the board in detail, I urge you to go look up what religious orders are and remember that the Jedi are one. We'll wait.

[hamishspence]

The "no wives/husbands, not training anyone older than baby" thing is mostly prequel-movies era Jedi. They weren't like that in the Golden Age era 5000 years before A New Hope, nor the Knights of the Old Republic era 4000 before A New Hope.

The Callista books (Children of the Jedi, Darksaber, Planet of Twilight) suggested Jedi could have spouses and children, and could be trained as adults.

This oddity is explained in the Clone Wars novels by having Callista's group be a splinter group from the main Jedi Order.

And even the mainstream Jedi make exceptions- like for the Cerean Jedi Ki-Adi-Mundi, who has a family- because his species is rare and needs everyone to contribute to it's continuation.

[Yora]

Say about the Jedi what you want, but when has a sith ever been anything but a baby-eating chaotic stupid psychopath? That makes the Jedi the good ones by default.

[Agrippa]

Say about the Jedi what you want, but when has a sith ever been anything but a baby-eating chaotic stupid psychopath? That makes the Jedi the good ones by default.

Not true for Darth Vectivus (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Vectivus). Yes, he is a canon character. I am not making this up.

[endoperez]

Technically yeah, Robin Hood was a terrorist. He still went against the government like V. Not to mention he killed a lot of people, blew up a building and...

Kidnapped and tortured a girl.

Which version are the spoilers from?

Robin Hood I know of opposes the local powers, but his terrorism act is toned down by ensuring that he's still loyal to the crown, or at least king Lionheart (except when it comes to the deer), and depending on the version may even hold to the whole chivalrous ideal of protecting the women and giving to the poor and whatnot.

He definitely terrorizes the local authorities, though, and tends to capture various figures of power and hold them for ransom.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Just like the Jedi and the Sith. Who's the evil one again? Qui Gon, a supposedly great Jedi constantly used the Force to trick people for his own gain. Not to mention the Jedi forbid any of their kind to marry and love is outlawed. How primitive is that mindset?

Jedi weren't allowed to marry because emotional attachment such as love could lead to jealousy, anger, and hatred especially if that loved one was harmed or in danger.

The Sith used the force to torture, murder and dominate all who'd oppose them in order to further there power.

Watto was using a loaded die, he was cheating, So how is it wrong for Qui-Gon to cheat back when it means freeing Anakin from slavery? What he should have killed Watto or tortured him to get what he wanted, thats what a Sith would do.

By using the mind trick on the Gungans he prevented any blood shed and saved Jar-Jar's life again. It also accomplished the needed task of getting to the capital city.

Being a jedi doesn't mean our a boy scout.


That doesn't make it right. Telling someone how to live their life in terms of love and marriage is still like a dictatorship.
The Jedi order isn't a life time service if a Jedi decides he wants to have a spouse and a family he can simply turn over his lightsaber and say "I quit goodbye"

Not every force sensitive became a Jedi and not every Jedi stayed one until death. Anyone who didn't like the rules of being a Jedi was free to leave.



Not true for Darth Vectivus (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Vectivus). Yes, he is a canon character. I am not making this up.

Wow one exception and he didn't even stay a Sith, yeah your going to need more then that.


The "no wives/husbands, not training anyone older than baby" thing is mostly prequel-movies era Jedi. They weren't like that in the Golden Age era 5000 years before A New Hope, nor the Knights of the Old Republic era 4000 before A New Hope.

Uh yeah they were, I distinctly remember from both Knights of the Old Republic games it being stated Jedi aren't suppose to have romantic attachments.
Just because the main character may have broken that rule doesn't mean the rule didn't exist.

The Callista books are set after return of the jedi,
When Luke rebuilt the Jedi Order he got to write the new rule book, the Jedi of old would probably be aghast at some of the changes.

[pendell]

Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy". The Galactic Empire is the only hope for peace and justice in the galaxy. When it collapses, it's mathemeticians launch a plan to restore it in only a thousand years rather than a multi-millenium interregnum resembling the earth's Dark Ages.

Niven & Pournelle's "The Mote in God's Eye". The Empire of Man seeks to unite all humanity under one government so that the Great Patriotic Wars which destroyed earth will never happen again.

Carr's "The Battle of Sauron" is set in the same universe. A rebel planet (Sauron) decides to overthrow the Empire and starts the war with an unprovoked nuclear bombardment of St. Ekaterina. The Saurons are genetic supremacists who have spent hundreds of years genetically modifying themselves into first super-soldiers, then Cyborgs. They view human norms as "cattle" suitable for use as host-mothers and breeding stock. The Empire is forced to rally totally as an army of genetic "supermen", disappointed emperor-wannabes, and the usual band of Jeffersonians who don't want to be part of the Empire unite to "liberate" humanity. This "Liberation" of course, meaning annexation by the Sauron Unified State, who sees the end of the war occurring when the last human norm gives birth to a Sauron-equivalent.


Really nice people.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[JonestheSpy]

You know, there seems to be a lot confusion of terms here. "Government" is not "Empire". Rebel" is not the same as "Terrorist". There are tons of stories where the status quo government is threatened by some kind of internal faction of bad guys and the heroes are fighting against change.

What makes the topic interesting (IMHO) is thinking about when an actual Empire - a huge, autocratic government ruling over many different peoples, often people who were conquered by force - being the one the good guys are defending, since it's so often the other way around.

And no Robin Hood is not a terrorist - he's a bandit, one who steals from people who use their advantaged social status to enrich themselves at the expense of the larger population, then redistributes back to the people it was taken from originally. The fact that some people may be afraid of him does not mean his goal is to spread terror via violence and destruction.

Oh, and:


Hm. I distinctively remember implications that most of the world was in a post-apocolyptic Nuclear Winter brought on likely by the cold war going hot. The U.K. isn't exactly the most self-sufficient place in the best of circumstances, and we've got a man who's stated goal is 'Anarchy,' note that Anarchy is not a good thing, and in a place that's likely barely held together, even the oppressive government suddenly looks better than the mass deaths following the government's collapse.



There are two keys to realizing just how big the nuclear exchange was: in a flashback the start is described as "Africa's gone," and Moore later said that "there wouldn't be a world after the kind of nuclear exchange I'd envisioned for that world." England may be prevailing (probably on borrowed time), but everywhere else you'd be lucky if you get Fallout... The gov't in charge may be fascists of the worst kind, but they're also the only thing keeping everyone else from starving to death. V's revenge is only going to cause the slow deaths of millions in "The land of do what you will."

Man, you guys are so full of your own biases and preconceptions that you've managed to completely rewrite Moore's work. thee is absolutely nothing in V to indicate that the English nazis (and that's what they were) were any kind of "necessary evil". They seized power by shouting the loudest and appealing to people's worst instincts, scapegoating minorities and dissenters.

I don't think it's beyond the political taboo to point out that a quick glance at history will show a depressingly large number of occasions where a nation was undergoing a great crisis and the wrong people get into power - not because they were the only alternative to collapse, but because they were the most vicious, ruthless, and violent.

And no, I don't think V's actions doomed millions. Another quick glance at history can show you many examples of people rebuilding a stable society after the fall of a tyrannical regime.

[hamishspence]

Uh yeah they were, I distinctly remember from both Knights of the Old Republic games it being stated Jedi aren't suppose to have romantic attachments.
Just because the main character may have broken that rule doesn't mean the rule didn't exist.

The games are set about 60-odd years after The Sith War- in which Nomi Sunrider's husband, and the father of her child, is a would-be Jedi, and after he's murdered, she takes up the role.


The Callista books are set after return of the jedi,
When Luke rebuilt the Jedi Order he got to write the new rule book, the Jedi of old would probably be aghast at some of the changes.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Altisian_Jedi

The Callista books may be set after RoTJ- but Callista herself is a Jedi from the Clone Wars era- who managed to transfer her mind into the computer of the Imperial battlemoon Eye of Palpatine.

Her sect- numbering several thousand Jedi- is mentioned in the Clone Wars novels- such as Clone Wars: No Prisoners, and 501st.

"jedi of old" is a bit of an iffy term- since things like Jedi only accepting those who had been raised by the Order from infancy, only started to appear about 1000 years before A New Hope. The book Darth Bane: Path of Destruction, mentions this.

I'm not sure if Jedi were ever required to be celibate- but, the "no attachment" rule does suggest they may not marry. However, it's not clear when that rule was first thought up.

In Clone Wars: No Prisoners, Ahsoka seems to be under the impression that it's marriage, rather than intimacy, that's forbidden- and that Ki-Adi-Mundi's marriage doesn't break the non-attachment rule because he's disciplined enough not to get attached to any of his wives.

[Derthric]

You know, there seems to be a lot confusion of terms here. "Government" is not "Empire". Rebel" is not the same as "Terrorist". There are tons of stories where the status quo government is threatened by some kind of internal faction of bad guys and the heroes are fighting against change.

What makes the topic interesting (IMHO) is thinking about when an actual Empire - a huge, autocratic government ruling over many different peoples, often people who were conquered by force - being the one the good guys are defending, since it's so often the other way around.

And no Robin Hood is not a terrorist - he's a bandit, one who steals from people who use their advantaged social status to enrich themselves at the expense of the larger population, then redistributes back to the people it was taken from originally. The fact that some people may be afraid of him does not mean his goal is to spread terror via violence and destruction.

Oh, and:






Man, you guys are so full of your own biases and preconceptions that you've managed to completely rewrite Moore's work. thee is absolutely nothing in V to indicate that the English nazis (and that's what they were) were any kind of "necessary evil". They seized power by shouting the loudest and appealing to people's worst instincts, scapegoating minorities and dissenters.

I don't think it's beyond the political taboo to point out that a quick glance at history will show a depressingly large number of occasions where a nation was undergoing a great crisis and the wrong people get into power - not because they were the only alternative to collapse, but because they were the most vicious, ruthless, and violent.

And no, I don't think V's actions doomed millions. Another quick glance at history can show you many examples of people rebuilding a stable society after the fall of a tyrannical regime.


Thank You! There is no single redeeming quality in the Norsefire Government. And for some reason I assumed the Nuclear exchange was limited (as limited a nuclear exchange could get) to tactical missiles over Europe and seeing that destruction the superpowers backed away leaving continental Europe and Africa desolate but themselves relatively un-nuked. And the other thing is he did plan for what would happen after his actions. Everything he did to Evey was to convert her to become the V persona. IIRC she was to be the symbol of rebirth and take up the mask. also i think there is a panel paralleling the scene of V standing in front of the burning death camp arms up next to Evey in the same pose after she gets out of V's torture cell but under the water. Fire = Death, Revenge, Destruction/ Water = Life, purity, Rebirth

Back to the main point of the thread one could interpret the Last Samurai with the traditionalists being truly loyal to the Emperor and the new age army the revolutionary minded.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Isn't that what the good rebels usually want to do, too? Heck, the Star Wars rebels (the archetypical "good rebels" of modern fantasy) have it right there in the title: The Alliance to Restore the Republic.

Backing up to before the Star Wars-centric tangent this went off on, I should clarify what I meant:

Evil Rebels want to establish a government for their own personal aggrandizement, usually (in fiction, mind, I'm not getting into real politics here) anarchy or an autocracy/oligarchy with themselves at the top. Good Rebels want to overthrow governments they find lacking in human/sapient rights and freedoms and replace them with...well, it's usually not explored, but in America it's almost always assumed to be a representative democracy for obvious reasons. Although fair and just monarchs are a common end result in medieval-esque fantasy.

[BendakStarkiler]

Im gonna throw in a second for Glen Cook's Black Company. While the sides change pretty often, during the 2 books of the south the Empire is the good guys. Not sure if the Empire in the first 3 books is better or worst then the Rebel, but that is understandable because the books are about mercenaries and the "good guys" are your brothers in the company, the "guys who you can stand" are the ones paying you, and the "bad guys" are everyone else.

If your looking for a great read look it up. They just reprinted the entire 10 book set in four books. One of my favorite reads.

[hamishspence]

Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books, have a moderately evil empire, but a much less evil Imperial Army- in the Mage Storms trilogy. Eventually the Imperial general breaks with the Empire.

The prequel books White Gryphon and Silver Gryphon have a much more sympathetic set of allied empires/kingdoms- the Haighlei.

Simon R. Green's Deathstalker series has both Evil Empire, Good Rebels, and (later) Good Empire, Evil Rebels. So we get to see the rebels discover what it's like to be rebelled against.

[Obrysii]

What about the Fremen vs. the Empire in Dune?

There was nothing inherently wrong with the empire - just that it favored the status quo and may have been a bit bloated. But then, suddenly, a religious cult who followed a boy claiming to be their messiah, whose messages are found through drugs, appears and takes it down?

[hamishspence]

Don't know about the Empire as a whole- but the Fremen at least saw themselves as massively oppressed.

In Dune Messiah, Paul's comment to Irulan about the previous Emperor:

"Your father was and is a beast. We both know he'd lost all touch with the humanity he was supposed to protect."

The portrayal of Emperor Shaddam IV in the prequels is consistant with this reference.

EDIT:

The Maquis in Deep Space Nine may qualify as sort-of rebels. They aren't revolutionaries, trying to overthrow the Federation government.

But they do use violence against Federation forces sent to apprehend them, and are disobeying the government.

And they aren't portrayed very sympathetically- being willing to use bioweapons on their enemies.

[Sinfonian]

Say about the Jedi what you want, but when has a sith ever been anything but a baby-eating chaotic stupid psychopath? That makes the Jedi the good ones by default.

I'd say that Darth Vader was pretty much textbook Lawful Evil, and a case could be made for the Emperor as well (though much less strongly).

[Obrysii]

Don't know about the Empire as a whole- but the Fremen at least saw themselves as massively oppressed.

In Dune Messiah, Paul's comment to Irulan about the previous Emperor:

"Your father was and is a beast. We both know he'd lost all touch with the humanity he was supposed to protect."

The portrayal of Emperor Shaddam IV in the prequels is consistant with this reference.


Except that what we see from Dune, the Empire mostly leaves the Fremen alone. We don't see them being enslaved, stolen from, or anything - they stick to themselves and are left alone. Partly because they have the Guild in their pocket.

We don't see the Emperor do anything really "bad" except side with the Harkonens, and even then it seems it was all just a complicated political gesture - we don't really know much of the back dealings.

And then seemingly out of nowhere, Paul appears as some mystical power and all his actions are right and justified because his family had some enemy and we don't know the whole story behind.

From a galactic citizen's viewpoint, a cult and its leader attack the Emperor and force him to give them his political power.

[JonestheSpy]

Dune is really a tricky one - which is fitting, as masterpieces are not simple.

On one hand, we're clearly not supposed to root for the Emperor and the Harkonnens. But it's true, Paul and he Fremen are unleashing a war on the human race that will kill untold millions. As was discussed pretty thoroughly in the Dune thread from a couple of months ago, Dune is really a tragedy disguised as a triumphant hero-tale. Paul sees that the jihad is inevitable, that by the time he achieves prescience it's going to happen no matter what, and fails to prevent it. All he can do is ride it out and try and minimize the damage. The only saving grace is the idea developed in the later books that without his and Leto II's rule, humanity would destroy itself in some never-explained way in the far future.

Too complex to fit into the basic precepts of the thread, but interesting to compare and contrast.

[Yulian]

But we are talking a guy who blew up parliament, who kidnaps people and Stockholms the heck out of them, and who has no long term plans for preventing mass starvation or any of the other consequences, which means a ton of people dead. And some, not all, but some of the folks working for the aforementioned incredibly evil regime were tolerable enough people. Including V's killer. Add in V's whole motive being, possibly, ordinary revenge and the whole thing becomes a bit murky.

Heck, it's one of the most common compliments for Moore's work in this case that he manages a bit of moral ambiguity on the whole thing, despite the villains being, well, Nazi types. Alan Moore himself said that he wanted the whole thing to be a tiny bit open to interpretation.


Okay, everybody needs to go back and read the part where it is revealed that the Norsefire government put all the black and brown people in England into concentration camps. Finch states as much to himself when he's overwhelmed by guilt when on that drug trip.

That is the nail in the coffin on "well, the government isn't that bad". Oh yes it is. Larkhill was also government sanctioned. The Norsefire government and its support structure were irredeemably evil, which is why Finch disassociates himself from it at the end.

The question of the work is really more about V and his incredibly extreme methodology and belief in anarchy. There is no question that the government needs to be taken down, but the issue is how, by whom, and what comes after, and is what V is doing acceptable even in the face of a government that is so bad?

But seriously, that graphic novel in no way fits the theme of the thread. Norsefire were monsters.

Oh! I got one! I got two, but pendell beat me to them both.

The Mote in God's Eye by Niven and Pournelle. The moties are the "underdogs" there, against the human Co-Dominium which has, in many ways, backslid morally from what it was earlier. The novel and its sequel make it clear that the moties gaining freedom from their own system would be a very bad thing for everyone, even though all they really want is to be free of their cycle of collapse.

Hmm, science fiction seems to do this a lot better than fantasy. Azimov's Foundation series has the Mule and his organization against the Foundation, eventually winning and taking it over, in an inversion of most similar fantasy plots. In fact, it follows almost perfectly; a lone, awkward child with a unique power rises up and sets himself an existing empire, eventually defeating it. Except this one's a vengeful megalomaniac and the Foundation is essentially benevolent.

God Emperor of Dune has Leto II and his plan to make sure humanity is safe essentially forever. He has to fight against agents that work against his plan and his empire.




Back to the main point of the thread one could interpret the Last Samurai with the traditionalists being truly loyal to the Emperor and the new age army the revolutionary minded.

I would argue that one. That film has an amazingly skewed view of the traditionalists. Great empire for them, not so much for the peasants.

Okay, here's a classical one, any of the King Arthur cycle ones. We have a good monarch and his nobles against a bastard usurper who's pretty much an evil jerk. I don't think anybody roots for Mordred.

- Yulian

[Mewtarthio]

I'm not sure you can really count coups and usurpations as "rebellions" per se. It might fit the loosest definition of the word, but it's not really a subversion to make such people evil. I think we should focus more on large, ideologically-motivated uprisings that have the support of a significant demographic among common denizens of the empire. That's the sort of rebellion that Western culture generally assumes to be "heroic" (bonus points if the rebels are not misled by their unscrupulous demagogues).

[Jaros]

Moore wasn't aiming to make Norsefire sympathetic, one quote I've heard said he didn't want them to be 'Space Nazis', he wanted them to be real, believable people. He didn't want you to think they were doing the right thing, he wanted you to think THEY thought they were doing the right thing.

[JonestheSpy]

I'm not sure you can really count coups and usurpations as "rebellions" per se. It might fit the loosest definition of the word, but it's not really a subversion to make such people evil. I think we should focus more on large, ideologically-motivated uprisings that have the support of a significant demographic among common denizens of the empire. That's the sort of rebellion that Western culture generally assumes to be "heroic" (bonus points if the rebels are not misled by their unscrupulous demagogues).

Yeah, Mordred didn't want to destroy Arthur's kingdom and replace it with something different/better/independent from the larger government, he just wanted to take it over. Though Mary Stewart's classic Arthurian series (The Crystal Cave, etc) is an interesting deviation from the norm - in her retelling, Mordred is a pretty decent guy who the fates conspire against, and his 'rebellion' starts as more of a series of misunderstandings and unfortunate events. Once war is inevitable, though, he's joined by various Saxon and outlying Celtic lords who think they'd be better off under his rule than Arthur's.

[Coidzor]

The only saving grace is the idea developed in the later books that without his and Leto II's rule, humanity would destroy itself in some never-explained way in the far future.

That always seemed more like an asspull. Mostly because it kept being brought up in universe to justify horrible injustice and every single major player trampling human rights left and right. Dune has always been the most grimdark series that isn't trying to make a comedy out of it like WH40K.

[Cristo Meyers]

EDIT:

The Maquis in Deep Space Nine may qualify as sort-of rebels. They aren't revolutionaries, trying to overthrow the Federation government.

But they do use violence against Federation forces sent to apprehend them, and are disobeying the government.

And they aren't portrayed very sympathetically- being willing to use bioweapons on their enemies.

Of course, when you consider that their enemies are by and by large the Cardassians, who are about as cuddly as a hedgehog stuck to a cactus...

[Yulian]

That always seemed more like an asspull. Mostly because it kept being brought up in universe to justify horrible injustice and every single major player trampling human rights left and right. Dune has always been the most grimdark series that isn't trying to make a comedy out of it like WH40K.

Well, the only thing that makes that even slightly "okay" is that fact that this is all being done by characters with verifiably accurate prescience.

Leto II really was extremely good at predicting the future, so he felt justified because he had knowledge everyone else didn't.

Kind of the Ozymandius from Watchmen thing with an actual super-power to back it up.

- Yulian

[devinkowalczyk]

As you can tell, there won't be many. Everyone is currently so caught up in the part of "playing the rebel" that nobody really knows what they are rebeling against. They just know that they are different, even though it is still within the socially set paramaters.

Sorry, I got nothing.

[Lamech]

The civil war?

[kpenguin]

I'm not sure you can really count coups and usurpations as "rebellions" per se. It might fit the loosest definition of the word, but it's not really a subversion to make such people evil. I think we should focus more on large, ideologically-motivated uprisings that have the support of a significant demographic among common denizens of the empire. That's the sort of rebellion that Western culture generally assumes to be "heroic" (bonus points if the rebels are not misled by their unscrupulous demagogues).

Coups and usurpations are rebellions under any definition of the word. According to Merriam Webster, a rebellion is:


1 : opposition to one in authority or dominance
2 a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government b : an instance of such defiance or resistance

[Kensington]

I just want to step in and say that the Jedi forcibly take children from their families if they are found to be Force Sensitive and train them without asking, since they're, you know, babies. Kidnapping children was wrong last time I looked.

[Ravens_cry]

Of course, when you consider that their enemies are by and by large the Cardassians, who are about as cuddly as a hedgehog stuck to a cactus...
Yet still had some sympathetic moments once we got to know the actual Cardassian people, rather then just their rulers.
And hedgehogs are adorable. (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/images/2567)

[VanBuren]

Coups and usurpations are rebellions under any definition of the word. According to Merriam Webster, a rebellion is:

True, but they are treated differently by fiction than your more iconic rebellion.

[hanzo66]

Actually I remember there being groups of Sensei attacking imperium ships due to being inherently moral or something. They can apparently use the warp without going over to chaos so I'm fairly sure they can recruit psykers and mutants and the like.

They're just isolated pockets, but between them and mentions of opresed mutants rebelling the imperium is still the worst morally.

Weren't the Sensei and whatnot revealed to be a Tzeenchian cult or something?

[chiasaur11]

Weren't the Sensei and whatnot revealed to be a Tzeenchian cult or something?

I think so.

And, if I may say so, good riddance.

They really hurt the whole tone.

[hamishspence]

I just want to step in and say that the Jedi forcibly take children from their families if they are found to be Force Sensitive and train them without asking, since they're, you know, babies. Kidnapping children was wrong last time I looked.

Forcibly? Everything I've read suggests they can't take the children without the permission of the parents.

[chiasaur11]

Forcibly? Everything I've read suggests they can't take the children without the permission of the parents.

Including Tag and Bink, the highest level of canon.

[hamishspence]

The sources that suggested parents have the right to refuse to allow the Jedi to take Force-sensitive children, were Outbound Flight and The Rise of Darth Vader.

[Brother Oni]

I would argue that one. That film has an amazingly skewed view of the traditionalists. Great empire for them, not so much for the peasants.

It depends on what you mean by 'not so great for the peasants'.

If you meant a western expectation of education, social mobility and religious freedom, then yes, I agree with you.

If you're implying that life as a peasant was nothing but crushing oppression and suffering meted out arbitrarily by their noble overlords, I disagree.

That said, you cannot disagree with the fact that the traditionalists are loyal to the Emperor - it's stated a number of times that if the Emperor wanted their heads, all he had to do was ask for it (implying that they would commit seppuku on his command). The fact that he didn't implies that it was either politically unwise, or that he didn't want to do so.

[Mewtarthio]

True, but they are treated differently by fiction than your more iconic rebellion.

Right. This topic is about subverting the usual cliche. Usurpers are considered evil by default (ie The writer must demonstrate the current ruling party is corrupt beyond any legal means of correction before the audience sympathizes with the usurper), simply because nobody likes the idea of one party completely ignoring the entire system and seizing absolute power.

A rebellion supported by the common man, on the other hand, is considered good by default, mainly because the common man is gambling absolutely everything on some extremely long odds, so it's safe to assume the current government is really, really nasty to push him that far.

[JonestheSpy]

Thinking about it some more, I recall that Tolkien had the story of rebellion and civil war in Gondor tucked away in the timeline of Appendix B. Would've made a great story if expanded. To quote one of the many Tolkien wiki's for a summary:

The Kin-strife

In the 15th century TA [Third age] a great civil war named the Kin-strife tore the nation apart. The current King Eldacar was of mixed blood: his mother was of the Northmen. Popular displeasure at this led to the overthrow of King Eldacar by Castamir, the admiral of all of Gondor's naval forces who possessed some royal blood. Eldacar's son was slain, and he fled north. Castamir was afterwards known as Castamir the Usurper. During his ten year rule he proved to be very cruel, and because of his love of his old fleet, he lavished attention on the coastal regions while the interior provinces were ignored and left to rot. Eldacar then returned with an army of his Northman kinsmen, and they were joined by armies of Gondorians from interior provinces such as Anórien. Osgiliath was devastated during this conflict, its great bridge destroyed and its palantír lost. Eldacar slew Castamir and reclaimed his throne, but Castamir's sons and their forces were besieged in Pelargir, the great port of Gondor. They eventually retreated to Umbar, where they joined with the Corsairs, and troubled Gondor for many years, until their descendants died out.


Particularly interesting in that Tolkien is often criticized for his emphasis on pure bloodlines and all that, but here he has a story of Gondor weakening itself badly because of the unpopularity of a "mixed blood" King, and choosing a pure-blood tyrant to replace him. Note it wasn't simply a coup, but a popular rebellion because of the King's ancestry.

[pendell]

I think part of the problem is that, prima facie, being the guy with overwhelming advantages isn't good storytelling.

War stories and adventure stories are about heroes who are outnumbered and outgunned defeating an enemy who possesses overwhelming advantages.

There's nothing particularly heroic or interesting about having overwhelming advantages and using them to good effect. It's more like pest control. People do it but they don't talk about it.

This sort of counterbalances the usual "History is written by the victors" trope you may have heard; if you look at the American Civil War, or the English Civil War, or pre-1917 Ireland, you'll see that most of the songs, stories, and tales are by the losers of those particular conflicts. Some of the best American civil war researches (such as Shelby Foote) spring from people with sympathies for the losing side. The winners more or less seem to want to forget the whole thing ever happened.

The only way to subvert this trope and make it interesting is if you are able to give the losers some advantage that makes tackling them with overwhelming conventional force somehow heroic. For instance, we still tell 'heroic' stories about WWII because although the adversary in that war was massively outnumbered they had technologies (such as jet aircraft) and a high degree of technical skill (good ol' Rommel) that made them scary.

So: If you want 'heroic empire' you have to make the smaller side somehow scary. Make them genetic monstrosities (see Mote in God's Eye). Give them incredibly superior technology (see: War of the Worlds. The earthlings always have a massive numeric advantage which is meaningless because the martian war machines are near invincible). Make them eeeeeevil (see: Hans Blofeld in the James Bond movies, Dr. Evil from Austin Powers).

This isn't trivial to make convincing. Which is why most storytellers take the easy way out and make the Empire the bad guys. Stories where the Empire is good aren't typically war stories -- they typically become crime dramas (the police almost always outgun the crooks, but the crooks are rats) or spy flicks (see: Dr. Evil again). But a war story where the good guys have all the advantages is usually devoid of drama or real conflict, and therefore is hard to make memorable. Which is why you don't see it very often.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I bring up Gundam again, because in just about every case with evil or morally questionable revolutionaries there, the revolutionaries start with an overwhelming technical advantage that the Federation or stand-in is just getting over at the beginning of the series, and even then the actual main protagonists end up isolated and outnumbered.

Shows with the revolutionaries as the good guys usually half-reverse this, giving them superior or equal tech, but of course leaving them outnumbered.

[Cristo Meyers]

Yet still had some sympathetic moments once we got to know the actual Cardassian people, rather then just their rulers.

Well, yeah. Garak in particular. I'm just pointing out that while the Maquis are willing to go to some real extremes in their fight, the empire they're fighting is definitely darker.



And hedgehogs are adorable. (http://www.dominionpaper.ca/images/2567)

A sea urchin, then :smalltongue:

[hanzo66]

Well... Does a corrupt ruler VS. Rebellion led by an incredible arse have any bearing? Because that's how the Mexican Revolution goes in Red Dead Redemption.

On one hand, you have Colonel Allende, who forces women into a personal harem and treats the peasants like crap. On the other hand, the Rebellion is made of common folks wanting a change, but the leader Abraham Reyes is a glory hog and an egomaniac who's good enough with words to sway peasants.

[rakkoon]

Several Mercedes Lackey novels are about Kingdoms that are threatened. The White Griffon come to mind, they are in a kingdom that is threatened by an serial killer (not completely accurate but let's not give everything away).

[Yulian]

It depends on what you mean by 'not so great for the peasants'.

If you meant a western expectation of education, social mobility and religious freedom, then yes, I agree with you.

If you're implying that life as a peasant was nothing but crushing oppression and suffering meted out arbitrarily by their noble overlords, I disagree.


The second? I'm not implying that at all. The former is more than sufficient to count as oppression. It doesn't always have to be death camps and random slaughter. Denial of education and religious freedom based purely on class, with no mobility is oppression.

- Yulian

[tomandtish]

How about E.E. Doc Smith's Lensman series? Earth, her colonies and allies, and the Galactic Patrol vs. Boskone (a group of intergalactic criminals banded together for conquest).

[Demonicbunny]

The Empire in the Elder Scrolls series is pretty much the good guys compared to most anti-imperial rebels.

[Lord Raziere]

I think part of the problem is that, prima facie, being the guy with overwhelming advantages isn't good storytelling.

War stories and adventure stories are about heroes who are outnumbered and outgunned defeating an enemy who possesses overwhelming advantages.

There's nothing particularly heroic or interesting about having overwhelming advantages and using them to good effect. It's more like pest control. People do it but they don't talk about it.

This sort of counterbalances the usual "History is written by the victors" trope you may have heard; if you look at the American Civil War, or the English Civil War, or pre-1917 Ireland, you'll see that most of the songs, stories, and tales are by the losers of those particular conflicts. Some of the best American civil war researches (such as Shelby Foote) spring from people with sympathies for the losing side. The winners more or less seem to want to forget the whole thing ever happened.

The only way to subvert this trope and make it interesting is if you are able to give the losers some advantage that makes tackling them with overwhelming conventional force somehow heroic. For instance, we still tell 'heroic' stories about WWII because although the adversary in that war was massively outnumbered they had technologies (such as jet aircraft) and a high degree of technical skill (good ol' Rommel) that made them scary.

So: If you want 'heroic empire' you have to make the smaller side somehow scary. Make them genetic monstrosities (see Mote in God's Eye). Give them incredibly superior technology (see: War of the Worlds. The earthlings always have a massive numeric advantage which is meaningless because the martian war machines are near invincible). Make them eeeeeevil (see: Hans Blofeld in the James Bond movies, Dr. Evil from Austin Powers).

This isn't trivial to make convincing. Which is why most storytellers take the easy way out and make the Empire the bad guys. Stories where the Empire is good aren't typically war stories -- they typically become crime dramas (the police almost always outgun the crooks, but the crooks are rats) or spy flicks (see: Dr. Evil again). But a war story where the good guys have all the advantages is usually devoid of drama or real conflict, and therefore is hard to make memorable. Which is why you don't see it very often.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

let me introduce you to economic depression, poorly trained forces, political turmoil, civil war and cut communication lines to your good empire. have fun. :smallamused:

[Megaduck]

the Course of Empire (http://www.amazon.com/Course-Empire-Eric-Flint/dp/0743498933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1281537605&sr=8-1) is one. While the rebellion is not Villainous they are in the wrong here.

[Oslecamo]

let me introduce you to economic depression, poorly trained forces, political turmoil, civil war and cut communication lines to your good empire. have fun. :smallamused:

Hmm, that may explain why the 40K humie empire is so popular despite doing pretty much everything wrong.:smalltongue:

Their "elite" troops have 50% betrayal rate, it's never very clear whoever's in charge in any given situation, they have so much bureaucracy it takes years to summon forces to answer to any problem and then it's not uncommon for said forces to be left behind forgoten when a new problem arises!Oh and it takes centuries at best to aprove any kind of new tecnology. How can't you like them?:smallbiggrin:

[Ichneumon]

I'd say from Star Trek, the Federation vs the Maquis fall in this category, somewhat.

[Lord Raziere]

Hmm, that may explain why the 40K humie empire is so popular despite doing pretty much everything wrong.:smalltongue:

Their "elite" troops have 50% betrayal rate, it's never very clear whoever's in charge in any given situation, they have so much bureaucracy it takes years to summon forces to answer to any problem and then it's not uncommon for said forces to be left behind forgoten when a new problem arises!Oh and it takes centuries at best to aprove any kind of new tecnology. How can't you like them?:smallbiggrin:

its because the situation looks sort of hopeless, the empire may be good.... but it doesn't mean it has to be perfect or working well now doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

[Demonicbunny]

Hmm, that may explain why the 40K humie empire is so popular despite doing pretty much everything wrong.:smalltongue:

Their "elite" troops have 50% betrayal rate, it's never very clear whoever's in charge in any given situation, they have so much bureaucracy it takes years to summon forces to answer to any problem and then it's not uncommon for said forces to be left behind forgoten when a new problem arises!Oh and it takes centuries at best to aprove any kind of new tecnology. How can't you like them?:smallbiggrin:

Well, to be fair they're doing pretty well for the situation.

1. They're managing to keep an empire of thousands of planets intact where interstellar travel means that in a good scenario you'll arrive in a few weeks or years (depending on range), in a bad scenario you'll end up lost in hyperspace for a few centuries and in the worst case your soul is eaten by demons. And this doesn't even require a technological malfunction (and those happen. With bad results)!
2. They're managing to keep an empire intact when its under assault by everything from malicious godlike entities (the only kind of godlike entity there is in 40k) to rampaging telepathic bugs that make pirahnas look like cute kittens to hyper-advanced aliens who in the best case have no respect for human life what-so-ever (and those could be called the "good guys" of that particular setting).

[VanBuren]

Does the American Civil War count?

[JonestheSpy]

Fiction only, please, or you can start visualizing thread lock.

[VanBuren]

Fiction only, please, or you can start visualizing thread lock.

What I mean is fictional accounts of the war that portray the Union as heroic and the Confederacy as villainous.

[JonestheSpy]

What I mean is fictional accounts of the war that portray the Union as heroic and the Confederacy as villainous.

That statement right there is so loaded I'd stay far, far away.

[VanBuren]

That statement right there is so loaded I'd stay far, far away.

No, it's really not. There are movies about the American Civil War that portray the Union as heroic and the Confederacy as villainous, and I'm wondering if that fits the criteria.

That there are just as many, if not more, movies that show the confederacy in a sympathetic light is not relevant to a discussion about "heroic empire villainous rebels"

EDIT: In case I'm not being clear, I'm not intending to bring the RL Civil War into the discussion, but rather fictional portrayals of it in media. There's a significant difference there.

[kpenguin]

While the Confederacy might easily be considered to be "Rebels", the Union in its fictional portrayals is seldom an "Empire"

[JonestheSpy]

Allow me to clarify. Historical politics are as frowned on by the mods as modern politics, and thee are enough people today who argue about the Civil War that it seems like just inviting thread lock. All you need is someone chiming in with how the Union were really the bad guys and it's all over.

[VanBuren]

While the Confederacy might easily be considered to be "Rebels", the Union in its fictional portrayals is seldom an "Empire"

That's sort of what I was thinking. Calling the union an "empire" would be stretching it a bit.


Allow me to clarify. Historical politics are as frowned on by the mods as modern politics, and thee are enough people today who argue about the Civil War that it seems like just inviting thread lock. All you need is someone chiming in with how the Union were really the bad guys and it's all over.

I haven't been discussing the actual war as it took place in reality.

[kpenguin]

Historical fiction skirts a close enough line that we would be better to avoid it, I think.

Anyway, before this continues, perhaps we should settle on concrete definitions of what is an "empire" and what is a "rebel"

[Oslecamo]

2. They're managing to keep an empire intact when its under assault by everything from malicious godlike entities (the only kind of godlike entity there is in 40k)

"Godlike" in 40K means your average ork warboss could pummel it with a blunt object, including the emprah himself. Easy as pie.



to rampaging telepathic bugs that make pirahnas look like cute kittens

Just because they're that slow, but the nids are clearly eating a hole in the imperium.



to hyper-advanced aliens who in the best case have no respect for human life what-so-ever (and those could be called the "good guys" of that particular setting).
You mean like the Eldar who work tirelessly against chaos and have been known to sacrifice themselves to protect humie worlds?

Or perhaps the necrons who filled the galaxy with stablizing pylons to stop chaos from just twisting everything and actualy allowed the emperium to develop 99,9% of it's current technology?

Maybe the Tau who offer advanced technology on a silve plate while holding countless orks and nids on their own asking only for mutual respect in return to wich the empire answers with barbaric attacks?:smallwink:

[JonestheSpy]

Anyway, before this continues, perhaps we should settle on concrete definitions of what is an "empire" and what is a "rebel"

Well, here's the definition for Empire I gave earlier in this thread:

A huge, autocratic government ruling over many different peoples, often people who were conquered by force

Not incredibly precise, but pretty decent, I think. Not a democracy or alliance like the Trek Federation or the Star Wars Old Republic, not a Kingdom, though the difference between Kingdom and Empire gets kinda fuzzy. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that when a Kingdom starts conquering other nations it's an Empire, but on the other hand pre-Arthurian Britain is generally portrayed as being made up of many small Kingdoms that Arthur brought together under his rule, sometimes by force, but his reign was not thought of as an emperor ruling an empire but as a High King who unified his people.

Rebels would be a sizable faction of the Empire that opposes the government via armed conflict, as opposed to terrorists who could be a very small group, or dissidents who oppose the government without violence. Rebels want to either break off and form their own independent state or overthrow the government altogether and replace it with something they like better.

[Demonicbunny]

You mean like the Eldar who work tirelessly against chaos and have been known to sacrifice themselves to protect humie worlds?

No. They do their actions because they have predicted that it will lead to saving Eldar lives in the future. They're also known for redirecting Ork Waaghs and Tyranid fleets towards human population centers so that they might miss an Eldar Craftworld or an Exodite world.


Or perhaps the necrons who filled the galaxy with stablizing pylons to stop chaos from just twisting everything and actualy allowed the emperium to develop 99,9% of it's current technology?

And who aren't even remotely good guys. Given their desire to destroy all life and their habit of flaying people or vaporizing them.


Maybe the Tau who offer advanced technology on a silve plate while holding countless orks and nids on their own asking only for mutual respect in return to wich the empire answers with barbaric attacks?:smallwink:

The people who tend to see the "greater good" as the "greater good of the Tau people". A "greater good" in which humanity has no place. Human colonies tend to have no humans a few generations after the Tau have taken them over to "live in peace and harmony".

[The Glyphstone]

The people who tend to see the "greater good" as the "greater good of the Tau people". A "greater good" in which humanity has no place. Human colonies tend to have no humans a few generations after the Tau have taken them over to "live in peace and harmony".

While your other points are valid, this isn't entirely accurate. The Tau are serious about 'everyone living in harmony' (under their rule)...they haven't exterminated the Kroot, after all, and they make extensive use of human auxiliaries. Where the Tau go murky-grey is in cases like the Vespids, where the choice is 'join the Empire for the greater good' versus 'horrible concentration camps/mind control and brainwashing'.

[Dvil]

"Godlike" in 40K means your average ork warboss could pummel it with a blunt object, including the emprah himself. Easy as pie.

I'd also argue this point. That particular Warboss I believe was the size of a Rhino APC, where your average one is about as large as a terminator.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Well, here's the definition for Empire I gave earlier in this thread:

A huge, autocratic government ruling over many different peoples, often people who were conquered by force

Not incredibly precise, but pretty decent, I think. Not a democracy or alliance like the Trek Federation or the Star Wars Old Republic, not a Kingdom, though the difference between Kingdom and Empire gets kinda fuzzy.

Rubbish. An Empire can be a democracy (Britain and France leap immediately to mind), and a monarch can be an Imperial Head of State if they like (again, Britain; Emperor is merely a title above King, and the European Empires were underway before Napoleon repopularised the title of Emperor). Incidentally, democracy =/= republic.

Sorry for sounding critical there. Ignore me and carry on, I merely get vehement sometimes.

[Oslecamo]

No. They do their actions because they have predicted that it will lead to saving Eldar lives in the future. They're also known for redirecting Ork Waaghs and Tyranid fleets towards human population centers so that they might miss an Eldar Craftworld or an Exodite world.

Well at least they're trying to save someone, while the Emperium's stance is normally "Kill the invaders, then kill our survivors because they may get new ideas from the experience".



And who aren't even remotely good guys. Given their desire to destroy all life and their habit of flaying people or vaporizing them.

You mean like the Imperium? The emprah himself ordered all non-human life found to be exterminated to the last alien, and then the empire just loves to nuke it's own planets showing they care little more about their own. The necrons at least give you a quick death, whereas the Inquisition and pals will torture you before killing you with fire.



The people who tend to see the "greater good" as the "greater good of the Tau people". A "greater good" in which humanity has no place. Human colonies tend to have no humans a few generations after the Tau have taken them over to "live in peace and harmony".

Like The_Glyphstone pointed out, the Taus have plenty of lasting colonies with all kind of other species, humies included. If they disapear it's because the humie empire itself launches a massive retaliation attack to kill their own instead of worrying about real problems, like the bug and fungus hordes.:smallwink:

That's actualy how a lot of planets join the Tau.
-Humie planet working to death with medieval technology.
-Tau appear and offer to trade advanced technology for raw resources. Planet increases productivity and is actualy able to better fulfilly the empire taxes.
-Inquisition discovers this "heresy", orders purging of the planet.
-Tau offer protection to the doomed humies.


What would you choose? Alliance with the aliens that helped you or let yourself be killed by those who only saw you as an expendable cog of their machines?:smalltongue:

[J.Gellert]

What about films with Romans that include barbarians? Of course the Roman Empire is often portrayed in a different light, but the whole "civilization vs barbarism" theme is used when they are the protagonists.

King Arthur comes to mind. Though the "noble barbarians" are closer to actual rebels, and the real villains are closer to "invaders".

I haven't watched Centurion, but from the trailers it looked like Kyrulenko's force in that one (whatever they are) might fit?

And of course, +1 to Warhammer, fantasy and 41st millenium. Even if an inquisitor condemns an innocent man (or planet...), you have to ask yourself, what has the Imperium suffered to make such acts as Exterminatus necessary in the first place...

[russdm]

I think the issue is with attitudes more than anything. Empire strongly implies in itself an autocratic body ruled by an Emperor that controls everything even if that leader is good. Also, "Evil Empire" simply sounds much better than something like "Evil Republic" or "Evil Democracy". Both just sound strange and open concern why the heroes/rebels are fighting against is. This is of course from a more western perspective really, but I think that an Empire could actually be written to be the good guys, but you need to delve a bit deeper about why there are rebels.

You can, as a writer, say something is an Empire and there are rebels fighting it and the rebels are nearly viewed immediately in the right because of American cultural views regarding things like previous empires in history. There were times when the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, and Ottoman Empire were all decent. But the US struggled against the British Empire for its freedom and in a couple of other wars, so it makes sense there is a cultural attitude against Empires in the US. I don't think it would be so a big deal in Britain/England.


He didn't want you to think they were doing the right thing, he wanted you to think THEY thought they were doing the right thing.

I thought this was how all villains thought.


Rubbish. An Empire can be a democracy (Britain and France leap immediately to mind), and a monarch can be an Imperial Head of State if they like (again, Britain; Emperor is merely a title above King, and the European Empires were underway before Napoleon repopularised the title of Emperor). Incidentally, democracy =/= republic.

This should totally work, but I think most authors and Hollywood generate to being able to say "Evil Empire". Star Wars simply popularized the idea that was already there and it ran away with itself too much. Also, its a cliché now, which means it will get used more and more and more and etc...

[veti]

Excluding historical fiction... cuts out most of the examples I can think of, and excluding real-world mythology and religion cuts out a whole bunch more...

How about: Rhys Rhysson, Low King of the Dwarfs, and Mr Shine, Diamond King of Trolls, who both have to deal with factions who want to reignite the traditional feud between their peoples? Not emperors, maybe...

The Empire from the Elder Scrolls is occasionally depicted as benevolent (e.g. in Morrowind, where its biggest dispute with rebel factions is over whether they should be allowed to keep slaves - the Empire votes "no"). In Skyrim, the empire has become pretty unsavory, but it still seems better than the Stormcloaks, who come across as pretty blatantly fascist.

[kpenguin]

The Modguin: Please don't revive old threads.