Was Dukat really evil?

Was evil really Dukat?

 

I would go one step further and equate Dukat with Hans Frank, the German viceroy who ruled over Nazi-occupied Poland on Hitler's behalf.

 

Yes.

 

Deep Space Nine did a fantastic job with moral relativism and questioning so many of the principles of Star Trek. One of the most common ones in the setting is the view that if you are understanding, empathic, willing to forgive even terrible evils, that you can make peace with anyone. Dukat is a fantastic subversion of this because he never is redeemed and not even redeemable because he never feels any sense of guilt. He thinks he's the good guy no matter what atrocities he's done from kidnapping an associate's son to be raised on Bajor, sexual abuse of minorities under his power, and even running an actual cult at one point.

He's a wonderful rebuttal to the issue because it turns out, yes, there are just some genuinely evil people out there.

And he works because he's never silly about it. There have been many-many Dukats in RL.

 

While it's true many Cardassians have done terrible things, Dukat was more selfish than most. In most cases it turned out he had his own interests behind the official reasons, even if that interest was just his own perceived 'glory'.

I wonder how he was viewed within Cardassian culture during and after he was gone.

 

Chances are, he will - eventually - be viewed by a virulent minority of Cardassians as a "savior" and "patriotic Cardassian".

 

Villains don't see themselves as evil. They don't see themselves as doing wrong. There's some justification they apply even if they're doing something they know isn't good - even if it's complete BS like manifest destiny or belief in an over race.

I think Fisk in the Daredevil TV show was a fantastic example. However awful his actions did you ever doubt that he was working for the betterment of his city ? At least in his own mind.

Good villains aren't one dimensionally twirling their moustache thinking "What dastardly thing can I do now ?".

Dukat was a great villain.

 

I wonder about that. I mean, I can buy that a Dukat type doesn't see himself as evil. Or that Hitler didn't see himself as evil. But take a guy like Hannibal Lecter. I don't think he needs any 'justifications' or self-delusions for what he's doing. He very well knows he's 'evil' and he seems to enjoy it.

 

Yes, absolutely. No question.

 

Lecter was so superior to those around him he was not subject to their petty morality nor were they protected by any kind of equivalence with him as a species. Lecter was unique amongst a world of sheep.

Or lambs.

 

To engage in armchair psychology of a fictional character, Dukat is a narcissistic psychopath. He's annoyed that everyone doesn't see him as the center of the room at all times and that his enemies don't love him when he's being friendly to them.

Honestly, the most out of character moment is his most humanizing with Ziyal.

 

Dukat is arguably the most evil character in ALL of Star Trek, actually.

 

Not only is that likely true, but simultaneously he's also the most nuanced and believable villain in all of Star Trek. For as "evil" as he is, he still has a personality and he still is shown at times to have some (potentially) redeeming traits. He is incredibly well fleshed-out and definitely comes off as a "real person" and not just "evil guy wanting power" or "bad person wanting revenge" or whatever other thin motivation our antagonists often have. Of course, as the series rolls on, we discover that even these traits are probably part of his psychopathic narcissisms, but it still is enough to leave the viewer absolutely intrigued.

Watching the "What We Left Behind" documentary, the thing that struck me the most was that actor Marc Alaimo felt that the producers had never recognized him or given him feedback on whether or not he had done a good job in the role. To me, that is astounding, as I think this may have been one of Trek's best performed characters in the entire franchise, main characters included.

 

The impression I got was they were very happy with what he did, so they never gave him notes and let him get on with it. Actors of course are insecure creatures and automatically assume no notes means they are doing something wrong (I worked in that world before, this is typical actor logic). Actors need the occasional pat on the back.

A miscommunication I'm sure, but clearly Behr and co. loved Alaimo because he kept getting invited back. And he is astonishing in the role of Dukat.

 

In a way, he was evil.

He was constantly manipulating and scheming in order to get advantages and more power. He was ready to kill or sacrifice anyone in order to get what he wanted. He actually planned to kill his own daughter because he saw her as a disgrace because she had been captured by the Breen and that she could be an obstacle to his own power ambition.

If it was because of the Cardassian system or not can always be debated. But there were Cardassians who were less mean that Dukat despite being brought up in the same system.

But that what's make Dukat such interesting as villain, isn't it?

And it's also what makes cardassians so interesting, both as villains and as a species.

As for Sisko, he had his good and bad sides too. Basically a good and fair person and Starfleet Officer, Sisko had a tendency to over-react in certain situations.

Especially in his actios towards Eddington. It was like he took Eddington's betrayal of Starfleet as a personal insult, as it it was directed at him, not against Starfleet and/or the Cardassians.

it was like Sisko was ready to cross all lines just to catch Eddington, like poisoning a whole planet.

But that's also what makes Sisko a great character. he was a "good guy" but had his flawas as well. He was.......very human.

 

More than Armus?

 

The most evil "mortal" character, then; Armus was metaphysical (actual "pure"?) evil rendered tangible.

 

I am planning to read the Terok Nor trilogy this year. I hope that Dukat starts a good person, changing in the man we get to learn in DS9

 

I doubt 'evil' can be measured along a one dimensional scale. It depends on what you define as evil.

- Malevolence as part of his character? Armus probably wins, he seemed to have very few traits but malevolence (in fact I don't think he was supposed to be character at all, just an abstract culmination of malevolence).
- Having no redeeming features as a character? Rivas Fajo probably wins (the guy who kidnapped data and who seemed to have no redeeming features at all. Unlike, say, Dukat who genuinely seemed to care about Ziyal, whatever else he may have been).
- Amount of damage he could do and 'scope' of his evil plans? Probably possessed Dukat (wishes to see the entire AQ in flames for eternity) or if possessions don't count, the female Changeling.

 

That guy was just a dick.