Was Kodos REALLY as evil as they made out??

[johcomp]

Having watched and re-watched Conscience fairly recently, I have some doubts as to whether Kodos was really quite the Evil Butcher that the others made out. From what I can gather, there was a great famine or food plague on the planet Tarsus 4 and there was not enough food to effectively feed the colonists adequately until a supply ship came along with more food. Kodos, (self appointed??) Governor of the Colony decided that the only way he could prevent everyone starving to death horribly and slowly was to halve the number of colonists, therefore ensuring that what food could be salvaged would be adequate to feed the remainder of the colonists. He then decided himself which members/families of the colony would prove to be a more valuable asset to the colony, and executed (painlessly) the ones not deemed suitable. The supply ship, however arrived much earlier than expected and found Kodos executing people by the 100s.

What goes against him in my opinion are the following:

• He decided himself who would be killed, who would be saved, rather than maybe drawing lots.
• He didn't obviously make any communication with the supply ships/starbases where the food was being shipped from, or he would have known it was due early
• Children had to stand in line while their parents were put to death. Not good unless you're from Eminiar 7!
• He didn't account for his actions once the colony was saved, instead he fled leaving a "body burnt beyond recognition" as a red herring

On the other hand:

• He truly believed that his actions would cause only 4000 people to die painlessly rather than 8000 slowly and horribly - the lesser of 2 evils??
• It is unknown how much effort went into solving the food plague problem but I can only assume the mass execution was a very last resort
• He clearly hated what he felt he had to do ("terrible things to be done") and executing whole familes one by one had to be the worst!

All in all, was Kodos really as evil as Kirk/Leighton/Riley made out?? Or did he try and save what he could of a dying colony, but perhaps went about it the wrong way??

 

[JustKate]

I could be wrong, but I think this episode and this character were left morally ambiguous on purpose. In many episodes, including many Trek episodes, it's pretty obvious who is the bad guy and in what way the bad guy is bad. But in this one, it wasn't and I don't think it was meant to be. I think we're supposed to have the same concerns that you have, Johcomp, even if Kirk, Leighton and Riley did not. And even there...I don't know, doesn't seem just a bit as though Kirk is forcing himself? As though he is trying to convince himself of Kodos' unmitigated guilt? I haven't seen that episode in a while, but...

 

[Timo]

My main objection to the argument that Kodos might have acted in good faith is that you don't survive famine by killing people.

People can survive almost infinitely with diminishing food reserves. The strong among the populance could have lived for several months with zero food, in fact. Killing half of them outright is an idiotic way to deal with the problem, and no person sensible enough to understand the predicament of the colony would consider this to be a viable solution.

If Kodos believed that help would arrive (resupply ships were scheduled, or summoned, or a new crop could be harvested) at a set date, his best bet would have been to ration the food and let everybody have a chance at living. If, OTOH, he didn't believe that help would arrive, then there would be no point in letting the 4,000 live, as they would surely be dead in the end. Even if they ate the corpses of the other 4,000.

I'd say Kodos at very best used the accidental famine for furthering a frankly quite psychotic personal cause, and at worst may have engineered the famine in order to exercise his psychosis. There is nothing redeeming in the way he carries himself afterwards - he's making excuses rather than repenting, and seems to rejoice rather than express remorse when saying that terrible things were done...

That Kodos managed to perform his possible initial coup and later massacre tells us something about the conditions on that colony, though. Kodos clearly had a large number of accomplices and followers, to be able to control the colony to such an extent. Most of them must have seen that Kodos was acting unreasonably and against the general interests of the colony - so they must have agreed with him on some special interests. We can only guess at what those might have been. Perhaps there were riches to be had, and the less survivors, the greater the share? Or perhaps there was a religious disagreement? Perhaps the victims had been witnesses to a crime so horrid that it was best covered with a massacre? Who knows... But clearly the colony had its share of truly evil people bent on killing that in no way helped with the famine.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[QuasarVM]

I think Kodos and the cloud creature from Obsession were the same person.

Hey! How are they going to account for all this pre-Enterprise history in the new film...

Oh yeah...they're going to IGNORE it!

 

[Tan Ru]

I always saw Conscience as a Nazi-war-crimes-hunt set in the future of the TOS universe.

In the 50's and 60's old Nazi leaders were still being hunted down in South America and the drama of that translated well into a sci-fi setting.

Pretty simple premise done brilliantly.

 

[Jeri]

^ ^ I was just going to bring up something along the same line. In 1965, WWII was only 20 years in the past, and pretty near every American alive either lived through it or had parents who did.

The Holocaust was a situation where a group of people set themselves above others and decided who lived and who died in a mass murder. I think it was so fresh in the public mind that there would be a knee-jerk reaction against Kodos's decision at that time.

It kind of makes sense that now, with the war 60+ years behind the public, someone might take a fresh look at Kodos and wonder. But back then, I don't think it was possible.

P.S. I remember seeing the picture of Eichmann, standing at his trial, on the front page of the newspaper. I was about 6 or so, I guess.

 

[Christopher]

I don't think "they made out" Kodos to be that "evil" in the first place. Kodos/Karidian was overtly portrayed as a man who was haunted by the acts he'd committed, even though he believed it had been necessary for the greater good.

I think that all too often, our society fails to distinguish between evil acts and evil people. Sometimes well-meaning people are responsible for acts of great evil.

 

[SonicRanger]

It might've been more helpful if the surviving colonists planned to eat the other half of the colonists as food.

 

[trevanian]

in the nuBSG universe, Kodos would probably be the lead hero figure. Because he could make hard decisions.

It's just a matter of perspective, how far back you're standing from the event, and the angle you're eying it from. And of course if you know anybody affected.

 

[IrritatingGameOfChess]

I could be wrong, but I think this episode and this character were left morally ambiguous on purpose. In many episodes, including many Trek episodes, it's pretty obvious who is the bad guy and in what way the bad guy is bad. But in this one, it wasn't and I don't think it was meant to be. I think we're supposed to have the same concerns that you have, Johcomp, even if Kirk, Leighton and Riley did not.

I always liked the fact that Kirk, Leighton and Riley demonized Kodos (because they were there when it happened and therefore had more of a personal investments in the event) and that Kodos was portrayed as carrying the burden of his actions on his shoulders. Yes, he did something terrible, but he thought (or part of him thought) he was justified at the time.

...I don't know, doesn't seem just a bit as though Kirk is forcing himself? As though he is trying to convince himself of Kodos' unmitigated guilt? I haven't seen that episode in a while, but...

I agree with your assessment. If Kirk had killed Kodos, he would have committed a crime like Kodos did - doing what he felt was right but then undoubtedly living with the guilt of his actions afterwards. McCoy says that if Kirk kills Kodos, it "will not bring back the dead," but Kirk replies that they "may rest easier." These conflicts make for good drama.

 

[ToddPence]

Thomas Leighton obviously suffers from a facial injury or deformity as half his face is some kind of black prosthetic covering. Although never stated, it is strongly implied that Kodos is in some way responsible for this disfigurement. But as heinous as Kodos's executions of the colonists was, Spock explicitly states that they were humane and the victims died quickly and without pain. So Kodos did NOT torture or maim his victims. So how Leighton exactly got his injuries is puzzling. (Of course, it is possible that what happened to Leighton's face has nothing to do with the events on Tarsus.)

 

[Basil]

By his own admission, he condemned his actions as Kodos -- that was why his discovery that Lenore had killed to protect him destroyed him. He thought she was the only thing in the universe he had not sullied, and her innocence and the fiction he created with his identity as Karidian had nurtured his otherwise guilty and fragile conscience all those years. He wasn't evil in a Snidely Whiplash way, but then seldom are real despots.

 

[Ziz]

I don't think "they made out" Kodos to be that "evil" in the first place. Kodos/Karidian was overtly portrayed as a man who was haunted by the acts he'd committed, even though he believed it had been necessary for the greater good.

I think that all too often, our society fails to distinguish between evil acts and evil people. Sometimes well-meaning people are responsible for acts of great evil.

Well, that's how all the really interesting TV and movie villains are. They did the wrong thing for the right reason...or at least the right reason in their minds. Their logic may not be "popular", but in some way, it still makes sense.

 

[Timo]

...Which is why it bothers me that Kodos' logic never made any sense.

It could of course be that Kodos had very sound logic - but the facts given in the episode don't tell us enough to figure out what that logic was. Indeed, the episode omits a huge amount of crucial facts, such as why an eyewitness statement would be relevant when good computer records of both Kodos and Karidian exist, and how Kirk got to be an eyewitness, and how only nine out of the 4,000 survivors were witnesses.

The logic of the story could unfold with the telling of these facts. However, the story doesn't really need that logic. The details aren't important to the drama, even if they are crucial to determining the character of Kodos - because the character of Kodos is not important to the drama. It's just another McGuffin to get the story going, and the character of Karidian is the one we're peripherally interested in. Yet even Karidian is just a supporting character, similar to Leighton or Riley in status. The story is about Kirk first and foremost, and Lenore second...

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Forbin]

Of course many things about the episode that made sense in 1966 leave one with a feeling in 2009.

How is it that with 4,000 survivors, only 12 people ever saw Kodos, the governor of the small colony?

What the hell was the revolution of which he spoke?

How could the burned body not be identified, given current DNA and dental ID? Heck, if you believe CSI and Bones, there's no way to NOT identify a corpse, no matter how badly it's been mangled/burned/decomposed.

Why did he create a new identity that put himself on display on stages in front of everybody all over the galaxy? Did he WANT to get caught?

 

[Cakes488]

I always saw Conscience as a Nazi-war-crimes-hunt set in the future of the TOS universe.

In the 50's and 60's old Nazi leaders were still being hunted down in South America and the drama of that translated well into a sci-fi setting.

Pretty simple premise done brilliantly.

I never even thought of that connection but I agree with you that it's there and that this episode was brilliant !

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

How could the burned body not be identified, given current DNA and dental ID? Heck, if you believe CSI and Bones, there's no way to NOT identify a corpse, no matter how badly it's been mangled/burned/decomposed.

Wouldn't that require DNA and/or dental records to compare the remains, too?

If Kodos truly believed he was saving people, he'd have volunteered to be one of 4,000 people to die.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Thomas Leighton obviously suffers from a facial injury or deformity as half his face is some kind of black prosthetic covering. Although never stated, it is strongly implied that Kodos is in some way responsible for this disfigurement. But as heinous as Kodos's executions of the colonists was, Spock explicitly states that they were humane and the victims died quickly and without pain. So Kodos did NOT torture or maim his victims. So how Leighton exactly got his injuries is puzzling. (Of course, it is possible that what happened to Leighton's face has nothing to do with the events on Tarsus.)

Well, there had to be people who were horrified by Kodos's actions. This sort of rule tends to spur resistence and uprisings. Perhaps Leighton was involved in the resistence movement and, during a mission to destroy one of the execution posts, he was caught. Needed the names of those involved, Kodos could have tortured him to gain the information. Here Kodos would be hurting an enemy, not torturing an innocent.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

in the nuBSG universe, Kodos would probably be the lead hero figure. Because he could make hard decisions.

I was just thinking that maybe Kodos "rolled the hard six."

 

[Timo]

What wasn't told in the episode might not really need telling - but here's a fairly obvious possibility.

How is it that with 4,000 survivors, only 12 people ever saw Kodos, the governor of the small colony?

Because he wasn't the governor - he was just the usurper of that position, and prior to his coup had not been a well-known figure. Indeed, he might have been somebody from outside the colony for all we know.

We might spin a tale wherein a Mr Nowan Nowsim arrives on that planet, along with people including Starfleet brats Kirk and Riley (and perhaps their parents), and then proceeds with a coup that turns him into the governor. Thus, the people who traveled with him to the colony would be in a unique position to identify him, while the people of the colony wouldn't know much if anything about his real identity.

What the hell was the revolution of which he spoke?

In this theory, it would be this Mr. Nowan Nowsim assuming the nom de guerre Kodos, telling everybody he knew how to save the colony, and/or pointing weapons at the colonists, and declaring himself the new governor.

A step in that plan might or might not be poisoning the food supply. And his initial followers or goons might have come with him on the putative ship, giving him an instant power base against poorly armed farmers.

How could the burned body not be identified, given current DNA and dental ID?

Because Nowan Nowsim was not on the colony records, being an outsider. Who knows, perhaps he had planned on this all along even before boarding the ship to Tarsus, and wasn't really Nowan Nowsim, either... He'd be basically impossible to track, then, as comparing the charred remains with the entire UFP database would probably be a futile attempt. A big part of the UFP populance might even fall outside those records, being isolationist colonials and whatnot.

Why did he create a new identity that put himself on display on stages in front of everybody all over the galaxy? Did he WANT to get caught?

Yes. He was guilt-ridden, after all - or at least liked to pretend to himself that he was.

Timo Saloniemi