Frankus vs Potatocis vs Emperor of Man

In the following article, you will find my analysis of the progression ( or regression) of the Emperors Potatocis, Frankus and the Emperor of Man. This analysis will be mostly objective although the conclusion of every aspect may be more subjective because I will be making assumptions, based on the current situation, in the case of the present Emperor. Since people can change, his ruling style may change and the ones for potatocis and the Emperor of Man are set in history.
The point of this analysis is to determine which ruler is the best for the people and the republic and what makes their ruling style change. The motivations of all three Emperors will be discussed.
First, we must decide what is the definition of a good Emperor. It depends on what Empire he is ruling. Simple, all three are ruling the Republic. Next we need to think of the conditions.
The Emperor of Man ruled in a dark time where the gods of Chaos influence was omnipresent. Potatocis ruled in a similar time although the threat was lesser because the chaos gods had been restrained but the Ps creature was Always trying to destroy the Republic and Potatocis personally...Frankus rules in a time post Ps creature and destroyed the chaos god but his challenge has become the struggle to be good after replacing the chaos gods and overconfidence.
If we are talking about the best Emperor, when it comes to morals, then I will argue that Frankus wins this category. As for the best Emperor for protecting his people, I will argue the Emperor of mankind although his morals were severely skewed. And Potatocis will be ahead in the most improved Emperor judging from where he started to what he became.
On the flip side, Frankus is the most vulnerable Emperor, Potatocis the most paranoid and the Emperor of Mankind the most dangerous.
The Emperor of Mankind sacrificed his life st the end of the Horus Heresy to ensure the Survival of mankind. Although his body is mostly held together by mechanical parts, his consciousness still battles the forces of chaos and traitors on a daily basis. He is considered a god because of his sacrifice. He is worshipped by the whole of Mankind. Although he has made mistakes, his ultimate sacrifice is what gives him the edge on the race to the best Emperor, although he has made significant mistakes before and even after he sacrificed himself.
Some of you will ask what mistakes. Well, morally, it is not seen as right to murder 1 000 psykers per day so the Emperor can keep control over the Empire. Some will say that he is protecting Mankind from chaos and all kinds of other evil but the question remains, is it ethical to kill people in order to protect others. 1,000 psykers one time...maybe but daily? Plus some people do not want to sacrifice themselves but they were sedated and killed anyway, used to strengthen the psychic powers of the Emperor. While he was fully alive he did the same thing. He is steering the people and bending them to his will. Although he said he never wanted to be revered as a god, he already knew that it was going to happen. His humility seemed more of a ploy of manipulation. Some people also believe that he played favourite with his son's and this is why his body was so damaged in battle others believe it was because of the multiple futures he saw, the one with the best outcome for Mankind was to let the Primarchs turn to chaos and lose the physical battle although the psychic one was not lost.
Although it is impossible to know of the Emperor of Mankind's motivations, we can evaluate him on ethics and morals. In this case, I feel like he has not quite been the most ethical Emperor of the three. We cannot even know for sure if the Emperor survived on his golden throne or if his body is decaying and his psychic abilities are no longer protecting the Imperium. He spent a few millennia not intervening at all with mankind and only pushed them forward or away from the brink on a few separate instances. His non interventionism could be also seen as negative. If he had the ability to stop people like Hitler and stood by and did nothing, then how moral and ethically correct is that?
Potatocis' start was rough. He found a new planet and utterly destroyed and ecosystem because it seemed disturbingly dangerous. Two conflicting viewpoints arose from this. The native creatures were upset to see their world destroyed just because it was different. According to the creature itself, it had not shown any hostility towards Emperor Potatocis. From Emperor Potatocis' viewpoint, the ecosystem and creature were a threat which would become dangerous if not dealt with swiftly. Unfortunately, this was a self fulfilling prophecy because the creature did not take very kindly to the destruction and desired vengeance on Potatocis and his Imperium. A gig war then ensued. Many head o heads and Potatocis died many times trying to destroy the enemy.
Some might say that, if Potatocis, would have let the ecosystem and creature be, the Imperium would have been peaceful. this was believed to be true right up until the time where Frankus became Emperor but, hindsight is 20/20. The truth is, the creature, having realised there were other worlds out there, would have eventually found the Imperium and started destroying the worlds anyway. Was striking first a good or moral move? Dd this foresight mean that he was a better Emperor than the Emperor f man? The answer really depends on the person. Striking first, seems wrong to me but, the end results would have probably been the same. Ethically, I believe that was a poor decision but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really count.
to be continued...
Mia Pallas
Category:Role play
Category:Analysis
Category:M.A.S