Treason or Villain?

I was re-reading the Inheritance Cycle by Christopher Paolini (Eragon, Eldest, Brisingr, and Inheritance) when a thought occurred to me.

The protagonist of the story, Eragon, flees from a corrupt and evil government, joins a rebellion, and overthrows a tyrannical dictator because it is the right thing to do.

Or so we are lead to believe.

Throughout the story we learn of the evils this leader, Galbatorix, did to get the throne. But these events are long past, and most alive where not alive to witness them. But we also learn that most people are not affected by his rule in the modern day (besides paying taxes) and that he spends most days alone in his castle.

We also learn that the war, started by the “heroic” rebels, leaves a trail of death, food shortages, and destroyed earth in its wake. One can even argue that they caused more issues for the Empire’s subjects than the supposed evil leader.

So this is my question:

If given the power of the main protagonist of this story (Has a dragon and magic. Whatever side you choose will win because of plot and for the purpose of this question it makes sense) what would you do?

Would you fight against an evil leader because of past atrocities, and in turn become a traitor and ruin the lives and livelihood of many innocents in your efforts to stop this man because he may do more evil in the future?

Or would you join this man who committed horrid atrocities to get to where he is, help crush the traitorous rebellion (in turn saving the lives and livelihoods of innocent residents of your Empire), for the sole purpose of ending the war faster but keeping this evil man in power?

Or would you remain out of the conflict all together, knowing the war will drag on because of you refuse to get involved, but refusing to get involved for moral reasons (whatever they may be)?

(for the purpose of this question, the king is undoubtedly evil, but has not affected any of his subjects in decades, and may not ever if the rebellion is crushed before it makes him step out of the castle.)

Also, if you join him, you cannot overthrow him. You can only defeat him if you join the rebellion (Magically Binding Oath keeps you from doing so)

I also just realized this was posted in the Introduce Yourself Topic. If someone with moderator powers can move it to an appropriate place, it would be greatly appreciated (never posted a new topic before. Trial and error I guess). Thanks!

Moved it to Open discussions
Marta Lina

Great Question!

I often think about a similar scenario as Luke Skywalker. Do you join Darth Vader who has the power and potential to bring long lasting peace and order to the galaxy despite his past evil deeds by wiping out the rebellion, or do you remain loyal to your rebel friends who are essentially terrorists who are responsible for thousands of civilian and military casualties in the battles they fight?

As a Jedi (non-fiction type) I tend to lean toward the solution that benefits the greater good at the current moment. In your scenario, it would seem that I would remain out of the conflict because the evil leader is not currently committing evil and challenging him would cost innocent lives that would otherwise be unharmed by the evil leader at the current time. There is nothing I can do to change the past. It would also leave me in the position to act against this leader should he perpetrate evil in the future without having to ever explicitly join his side now. It sounds like a cop out, but I would likely take my dragon and go home.

As for the Vader scenario, he was currently perpetrating acts of evil against innocent civilians with the Death Star (Alderaan) and threatening the destruction of other planets and moons as well, all at the bidding of an even more evil master. This master has a past record of evil, access to nearly unlimited power (Force), and plans for the future that could harm innocent people, so I would have to join the rebellion and fight Vader and the Emperor despite the fact that I might end up killing thousands on the Death Star in the process or any hope that Vader would change his ways if the Emperor were out of the picture..

I don't think the Rebellion were terrorists. I don't buy the whole 'one persons freedom fighter is anothers terrorist argument' as they are distinct objective things. Unless of course the Rebels were targetting civilians, in which case yes - but I imagine the Death Star was a military installation, though even if it were not entirely military, its primary purpose seems to be - and that process of distinction then would lean on balancing necessity to determine if its proportional. In contrast the Empire seemed to institionalize terrorism as a means to dictatorial ends eg Alderaan.

So to the OP, I'd put a lot of effort in assessing the reliability of data sources to find useful supplementary information to inform first hand experience in making any decision about what might classify as actual practical knowledge.

FREEEEEDOOOOMMMMM!
Always fight against tyrannical rule no matter whether it presents itself as benevolent at the current time or not. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without a checks and balances in place you are always subject to the will of the oppressor and that is NEVER a place in which you would want to find yourself. Sure, war will produce suffering, but the ultimate goal is a true long lasting peace, not a false peace under a tarrant! DEATH TO VADER AT ALL COSTS!

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: FREEEEEDOOOOMMMMM!
Always fight against tyrannical rule no matter whether it presents itself as benevolent at the current time or not. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without a checks and balances in place you are always subject to the will of the oppressor and that is NEVER a place in which you would want to find yourself. Sure, war will produce suffering, but the ultimate goal is a true long lasting peace, not a false peace under a tarrant! DEATH TO VADER AT ALL COSTS!

I agree with most of this, except that in the case of Vader, he was in part created by the oppressive nature of the Jedi. Although entirely meant to be manipulative, the Emperor's assertion that the Jedi were power hungry themselves was not entirely unfounded. The council's treatment of Anakin, especially by Mace Windu, pointed him down the path toward becoming Vader. That's what makes the moral dilemma of Anakin so intriguing. Vader himself becomes a check and balance on the power of Yoda and the Jedi.

Senan wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: FREEEEEDOOOOMMMMM!
Always fight against tyrannical rule no matter whether it presents itself as benevolent at the current time or not. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Without a checks and balances in place you are always subject to the will of the oppressor and that is NEVER a place in which you would want to find yourself. Sure, war will produce suffering, but the ultimate goal is a true long lasting peace, not a false peace under a tarrant! DEATH TO VADER AT ALL COSTS!

I agree with most of this, except that in the case of Vader, he was in part created by the oppressive nature of the Jedi. Although entirely meant to be manipulative, the Emperor's assertion that the Jedi were power hungry themselves was not entirely unfounded. The council's treatment of Anakin, especially by Mace Windu, pointed him down the path toward becoming Vader. That's what makes the moral dilemma of Anakin so intriguing. Vader himself becomes a check and balance on the power of Yoda and the Jedi.

Quite honestly that is nothing more than moral justification for the actions of a tyrannical, power hungry madman. Vader and his ilk in the chancellor/emperor were the true oppressors. Their actions forced the jedi to the position they found themselves in after the clone wars. Before that they always took their direction from the Republic in state matters. The corruption of the Republic also played a role in their demise. However ultimately I believe that they were doomed from their inception as they had abandoned the balance once maintained by the je'daii. So ultimately they had sealed their fate centuries ago... just as the Sith have done, which I think the current trilogy is alluding to. In any case free pursuit and free consequence is the true path to balance. This is only achieved in a free state, free enterprise, minimal govt controlled society. Any time that balance sways one way or the other intervention up to and including Violent conflict is the only means of resolution to bring that controlled balance back in check. This means anarchist states need to be reigned in and tyrannical states need to be irradicated.

In regards to the Inheritance cycle and Galbatorix specifically, I don't think the Varden/Eragon were morally wrong to oppose him. I haven't read the series in years, so my details might be a bit hazy, but I think that at the time of the war he was still evil or at least neglectful. He didn't do much or anything to help his people when they were hungry or attacked by Urgals, which would have been his responsibility as king. And he still commanded the Ra'zac, who definitely resorted to murder and torture. It would be better for the people if his rule were to end, especially considering the fact that he could theoretically rule as long as he wants. I can't remember the Varden directly causing harm to the citizens; as far as I know any direct harm was a result of the king's retribution toward perceived threats.

Allair Said:

In regards to the Inheritance cycle and Galbatorix specifically, I don't think the Varden/Eragon were morally wrong to oppose him. I haven't read the series in years, so my details might be a bit hazy, but I think that at the time of the war he was still evil or at least neglectful. He didn't do much or anything to help his people when they were hungry or attacked by Urgals, which would have been his responsibility as king. And he still commanded the Ra'zac, who definitely resorted to murder and torture. It would be better for the people if his rule were to end, especially considering the fact that he could theoretically rule as long as he wants. I can't remember the Varden directly causing harm to the citizens; as far as I know any direct harm was a result of the king's retribution toward perceived threats.

The Varden ate all the food in the area (food was scarce amongst the Varden because they ate all the food in the vicinity as they moved troops). They also, in their pursuit to make money, undercut the entire lace industry with magic. Besides that, assaults on cities have innocent casualties.

This is more of a moral thing. Yes, Galbatorix was a bad man, but there were other ways of solving the issues he caused. I personally would have tried siding with him, dragon or no, to try to gain power underneath him so to try to change things from the inside. His inaction caused a lot of problems because his vassals and lords took far too many liberties with their power. Would it be wrong of me to support him? One can be led by yet not support someone. Look at the States. Half the states think their current leader is a horrid being that committed many terrible acts, yet they must follow him because it would mean civil war if they fought. They can only hope for moral politicians to fight against him from within. This aspect would apply in my plan of attack.

Open war solves little. It is governments of the world fighting, and those stuck in the crossfire do their best to get by. Soldiers do not kill because they want to (besides the mentally disturbed ones), they do it because they have been ordered to and because they love those behind them and beside them. Should one fight against corruption? Yes, but I think the open violence the Varden brought caused more damage than roving bands of Urgals ever could.

Right, I'd forgotten the specifics. Thanks for the reminder. I agree that generally open war shouldn't be the default solution, but in my opinion the Varden weren't wrong to resort to that, if only because Galbatorix had the ability to completely control anyone who stepped into his reach, making it difficult or impossible to change his system from his side. It wouldn't be automatically wrong to side with him in order to try to protect the citizens of the Empire and end the war, but I personally wouldn't choose that path because I don't think I could do much good in a state of perpetual slavery. If there were an option to stay out of the conflict and instead focus on helping the casualties (bringing food, relocating if necessary, driving out Urgal threats) I might go with that, but if forced to choose a side I would go with the Varden, if only because I wouldn't want to serve and be controlled by someone like him, and the damage he could cause in the long run (since he's immortal) would probably outweigh the immediate damage caused by the Varden. Especially if the Urgals were allowed to be a continual presence, since they'd probably grow in strength and start taking lands and crops for their own, in more force if they were doing that already.