• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Gul Dukat is a good guy

Spot261 said:
Especially psychopaths, it's what makes them so dangerous. I actually think it speaks volumes about Marc Alaimo's performance that so many felt this way about Dukat, no matter what he was shown doing people (both characters in show and the viewing audience) were willing to trust him.

The cave scene is classic narcissistic stuff, with him feeling the need to seek justification from his perceived nemesis. Nothing he is saying has any real bearing on his moral culpability, merely indicates he feels the need to justify his behaviour to himself and a select few whose opinion he deems worthy. In this case the man he perceives as his alter ego - the other ruler of terek nor.

There was a documentary made a while back where Hitler's secretary was interviewed at length about her time with him in the Berlin bunker and it was clear she was still in love with him, she barely mentions the atrocities she was asked to forward orders for, rather she talked at great length about how kind he was to kids and animals, how he was such charming company and listened to everything she had to say. Had he not been so charismatic it's difficult to see how he could have convinced half the world to follow him. The most dangerous people get to be that way precisely because they get people to let their guards down.

Yes Dukat may have tried softer methods, but only to assess their usefulness in gaining control and maybe reinforce some form of Messiah complex, not out of any genuine concern for the Bajoran people, you can guarantee that. Psychopaths don't always resort to violence as a default, rather they choose whatever methods they deem most likely to gain the results they desire at the time. Yes he may have been acting according to the policies of his government, but how is it that he, of all the billions of Cardassians out there, found himself in that singular position of holding ultimate power of life and death over so many? It's simple, because he was eminently suited to the job and had worked his way up callously disregarding life and suffering except where it suited him or his ego to do otherwise.

Tellingly, he can superficially respect and honour individual Bajorans (treating Kira as an equal when he needed her, bedding Winn Adami when he needed her, fathering and raising Tora - after trying to kill her) whilst subjugating the entire race, instituting mass murders, slavery and systematic rapes with equanimity. Again, he can be whoever and whatever he believes is needed to reach his goals, if that is charming friend and confidante so be it, if it is cold uncaring monster likewise.

The character to me constantly screamed out "redemption" and that is exactly why people loved him, they kept wanting that moment when something or someone showed him the light, his Darth Vader moment. But it never came because he truly was evil, merely very good at gaining people's trust.
Click to expand...

Sisko was rather literally his Nemesis though wasn't he, to be fair?

I think even the writers realised he was getting too redeemed halfway through, I think they are on record as saying so, d it's why the wrote the cult episode in particular I thought.
 
I sincerely hope this was just a troll attempt. Dukat was a humanitarian because the Bajoran religion is annoying?

Yeah, no.
 
I also wondered if the OP was trying to stir shit, but I like that almost every time someone does that in the DS9 forum, instead of people jumping up and down we just end up having a discussion about it.
 
Romo Lampkin said:
I just find the Bajorans insufferable, I think that's justification enough for their subjugation.
Click to expand...
Romo Lampkin said:
He was trying to help them in an adverse situation and they spat in his face. So why wouldn't he resort to hyperbole about annihilating Bajor?
Click to expand...
So the Bajorans deserve to be subjugated because they're insufferable, and they deserve to be annihilated because they're ungrateful. If you think those are justifiable acts under any conditions ... then yeah. Yeah, I can believe you'd perceive Dukat as a righteous dude.

But that says very little about Dukat, and it says a great deal about you.
 
Romo Lampkin said:
...that Milligram experiment seems to demonstrate just how passive and pliable most humans really are.
Click to expand...
Milgram Experiment.

Everyone only ever talks about the 65% compliance "baseline study" of that experiment and ignore all the other parts of it. There were between 20 and 40 variations on that paradigm, from where subjects sat to how the "teacher"/experimenter/prodder was dressed and who they presented themselves as (lab coat, no lab coat, etc.), with with varying levels on compliance. In one variation (where there were two teachers who disagreed) they got 0% compliance.

And what's really interesting about that experiment is that when subjects invariably resisted continuing (giving supposed electric shocks to a 3rd person), the teachers had four scripted prods they would use in sequence to try to provoke compliance:
  1. Please go on/continue.
  2. The experiment requires that you continue.
  3. It's absolutely essential that you continue.
  4. You have no other choice.
If the subject argued until the teacher pulled out prod #4, every single subject refused to go on with the experiment. Think about that. When ORDERED to go on compliance fell to 0%.

What's troubling about the Milgram Experiment is that people are willing to do harmful things to other people of their own free will. What's hopeful about it is that people will refuse to do same when ordered.

People portray the experiment as proving people follow orders, when, in fact, it shows the opposite.
 
Last edited:
BillJ said:
He became a cartoon character towards the end of the series.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I like Dukat's characterization the least towards the end of the series. Up until that point he had been a terrific villain. He was a nuanced character who was self-effacing, and quite charismatic, and he used that to his benefit.

For Dukat, the weight of all his crimes may as well have been water sluicing down a wall of Teflon. You didn't truly know what to expect from him: kind one minute, bitter the next, but always cunning. I consider him the best villain of any Star Trek series. Then they had to go and ruin it in the last season by making him a scene chewing, cackling villain with plans for galactic domination. *le sigh*
 
Romo Lampkin said:
I agree with that, I don't see the point of religious arguments, they distract from interesting topics. I just find the Bajorans insufferable, I think that's justification enough for their subjugation.
Click to expand...

Dude, you do realize that's basicly the same as someone saying Hitler was ok with killing Jews because that persons thinks Jews are annoying?

Would you like you reality-check now, or do you think you can actually keep this up for a few more pages?
 
Tosk said:
People can be charming, even psychopaths. The fact that a lot of people seem to cut Dukat so much slack just because he loves his daughter and claims to have meant well when he did all those horrible things scares me. But just a little.
Click to expand...

Hell, Hitler really loved his dog. Doesn't make him friggin Santa Claus
 
Doom Shepherd said:
"Ja, I vass just vollowink orders!" -- Every other Nazi after WWII. It didn't work for them either.
Click to expand...

It did work for many people after the fall of East Germany, though ... but that's another story.

I think that Dukat was highly dilusional ... he might have thought he was a good guy and that he was acting in the best interest of Bajor, but there is no way denying that he was a part of the machinery that enslaved an entire planet and its population.
 
I believe that the OP is at least somewhat sincerely trying to point to a flaw in the character's development, but does so through a misapplication of relativism. Dukat's behavior after SoA--his madness, his possession, and finally, his turn towards messiahdom--do at least raise a few questions about how responsible he is for his own behavior (a point I won't defend too hard). That said, Dukat's possible insanity has no bearing on the morality of his actions, especially those before SoA. His bargaining, both with the Central Command and with himself, over the slightest bit of leniency, makes him no saint.
 
Psychopathy is not like schizophrenia, it does not make you less responsible for your actions.

The point of Waltz is that Dukat was always a monster, but he was a master of self delusion. He was a narcissist who only cared about proving he was so much better than others that they should all be worshipping him. None of his actions prior to Waltz contradict this. His attitude toward Bajoran women, who he engineered a 'caring relationship' with where he was kind to them but also made them totally dependent and deferent to him. First leading the rebel charge against the Klingons, then engineering a deal with the Dominion that places him in a (fake) leadership position on a galactic stage. The only one of his actions that mildly contradicts that is his attitude toward Ziyal.
 
Maurice said:
Milgram Experiment.

Everyone only ever talks about the 65% compliance "baseline study" of that experiment and ignore all the other parts of it. There were between 20 and 40 variations on that paradigm, from where subjects sat to how the "teacher"/experimenter/prodder was dressed and who they presented themselves as (lab coat, no lab coat, etc.), with with varying levels on compliance. In one variation (where there were two teachers who disagreed) they got 0% compliance.

And what's really interesting about that experiment is that when subjects invariably resisted continuing (giving supposed electric shocks to a 3rd person), the teachers had four scripted prods they would use in sequence to try to provoke compliance:
  1. Please go on/continue.
  2. The experiment requires that you continue.
  3. It's absolutely essential that you continue.
  4. You have no other choice.
If the subject argued until the teacher pulled out prod #4, every single subject refused to go on with the experiment. Think about that. When ORDERED to go on compliance fell to 0%.

What's troubling about the Milgram Experiment is that people are willing to do harmful things to other people of their own free will. What's hopeful about it is that people will refuse to do same when ordered.

People portray the experiment as proving people follow orders, when, in fact, it shows the opposite.
Click to expand...
Thank you for restoring a modicum of faith in humanity. I think it's annoying that you read this stuff on the internet but it's always distorted to fit a status quo agenda. A variant on this is human nature=selfish, therefore accept neoliberal society. When human nature could also be described as altruistic.
 
Silvercrest said:
So the Bajorans deserve to be subjugated because they're insufferable, and they deserve to be annihilated because they're ungrateful. If you think those are justifiable acts under any conditions ... then yeah. Yeah, I can believe you'd perceive Dukat as a righteous dude.

But that says very little about Dukat, and it says a great deal about you.
Click to expand...
It's just a TV show.
 
Almost everyone believes they are the protagonist in the story of their own lives.

Dukat was very much a BAD guy. The fact that sometimes we can sympathize with him anyway stands in tribute to the writing, and to the acting ability and natural charisma of Marc Alaimo.

I found the Bajorans (excepting Ro, Kira, and Sito) fairly boring and annoying. I also feel that way about some cultures on our real Earth. That's not a reason any moral person ever takes up for anyone to eradicate or subjugate them or the Bajorans. The fact that an immoral person who would might be *likable* does not make them a good guy.
 
Romo Lampkin said:
It's just a TV show.
Click to expand...
If you really believe that, why did you waste time signing up for an account and posting on a board about it? Regardless of any discussion of the artistry, legacy, or societal importance of Star Trek (subjects most of us would be biased on), the stage, in general, is useful for drawing analogies to discuss real-world matters, communicating feelings and ideas, and allowing a momentary escape from the mundanity of day to day life. It isn't *just* a TV show.

I'm starting to agree with those that believe you collect tolls from passing goats. :nyah:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top