Board Thread:What If?/@comment-5674726-20130803001002/@comment-5674726-20130811170441

Edrea wrote:

Morgana was made evil also to strengthen the fact that Gwen was the once and future Queen. If Morgana was not evil and everybody knew she was daughter or Uther, nobody even considered Gwen to become queen, even when Arthur died and she was his wife.

[snip for length]

If she didn't consume by her hatred so badly, if she still show some mercy or love or caring to her friends, killing her would be bad. Merlin, Gwen would looked like heartless friends, and Arthur would looked like heartless king and brother. That will not a good example or good role for them. Since the three of them should be the kindest of all, even if they had to kill, it was because it was the best way.

While I'd say that you could be right, or at least hitting very close to the mark, it sounds like something out of a Bad Writing 101 course: Turning A Character Into a Total Villain (Logic and Balanced Storytelling Be Damned!) To Make Your Designated Heroes Look Better.

I think that a grey role would have suited Morgana, and could have been fascinating to watch precisely because of the necessary changes to the storyline, as there would be no easy answers. She doesn't have to be a Card-Carrying Villain to be a threat, she could have a genuine difference of opinion over the way Arthur would run the kingdom and the way she would have it run. In that case, it makes if worse, in a way, if she isn't an outright enemy because she is heir to the throne and there is no reasonable justification to deprive her of her succession rights so, once Arthur dies, she will run the kingdom as she sees fit, which will differ from the way that he, Merlin and Guinevere believe it should be run, at least in some respects.

It'd be a little like Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, in the sense that while Arthur is working towards the Camelot he wants to build, he knows that, if he dies, Morgana can take the kingdom in a different direction, just as he took it in a different direction to the one Uther intended. If she was a traitor, he would have an excuse to disinherit her but if, as with Elizabeth Tudor, Morgana can never be proven to be a traitor, she remains heiress presumptive. Arthur can hardly argue that she doesn't deserve to be heir because she disagrees with him in some respects, given that he has made changes that would horrify his predecessor.

Instead of storylines revolving entirely around Monsters of the Week and Big Bads, while the nobility are well-dressed props whose previously insurmountable objections to things like knighting commoners and a servant as Queen vanish as the plot demands, they could have had a strong, continuing subplot about the court and how the changes are received by the nobility. It would have made for a much more compelling storyline if Arthur had to push things like knighting commoners and marrying a servant over the vocal objections of the nobility, and then had to face the consequences for doing so, with factions forming in the court. Uther united the kingdom and held it together but it would be a fragile thing and perhaps Morgana could recognise this and advocate a more conservative approach, rather than alienating the nobility, who could withdraw their allegiance if they think that Arthur's not a king they can follow. She might believe in some of the things that Arthur hopes to achieve but feel that they can’t rush it as the kingdom isn’t ready for too much change, too quickly.

When she's compared to Uther, it could be a compliment; she's intelligent and politically astute enough to have a better idea of how far the nobles can be pushed and how much change can be imposed before they lose crucial support.

Let Arthur work to accomplish what he wants, and have losses to balance the gains. Morgana could take a leaf out of Morgan Pendragon's (Camelot) book and win support by showing what she could do if she was in charge. Maybe it's intentional, if only to show Arthur how well her way can work, maybe she is doing what she thinks is right and making no deliberate attempt to undermine Arthur, or maybe it's somewhere between the two.

Instead of being an outright villain, Agravaine could be a noble who was content with his position under Uther's regime and who isn't happy with some of the changes Arthur has made, and he wouldn't be the only one. At least some of the nobles would be bound to view Arthur's decision to knight commoners as akin to Caligula making his horse a senator, taking it as an indication of his lack of respect for them and their position, and his determination to dilute their power and influence by swelling the ranks of the nobility with commoners handpicked for their loyalty to him. He supports Morgana because he doesn't approve of the direction in which Arthur is taking Camelot and, while not staging a coup on her behalf, could garner support for her to be Regent in Arthur's absence, for example, thus allowing her an opportunity to show what kind of ruler she could be.

It could lead to a power struggle of sorts between Morgana and Guinevere, since the latter isn't going to want to be a decorative consort. The fact that they are friends makes it worse because it’d be very difficult to keep their friendship and their political disputes separate.

There would also be a lot of potential for a storyline about the succession, given Arthur and Guinevere’s failure to produce children. Given what happened the last time magic was used to bring an heir into the world, Merlin would hopefully have the sense not to use his magic to help. Without a child to raise to rule Camelot when Arthur is gone, there’s no alternative to Morgana as heir. Depending on how worried other characters are about the direction in which she will take Camelot – ie. she’s very much in favour of reversing the anti-magic laws but not keen on working to undermine the class system – it’d be a potential vehicle for the Lancelot/Guinevere affair, with the goal of producing a child Arthur can raise as his heir.

It wouldn’t make a bad fanfic.