Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/40288
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I'm in the early stages of developing a fantasy story. At a high level, it involves the tried-and-true, if cliched, plot line of "Scrappy group of rebels fights for liberation against the oppressive Evil Emperor".

Here's the catch: The Empire hasn't faced any sort of real resistance in generations, and consequently lacks real military expertise. Their tactics tend to be heavy handed or flawed, and more often than not the rebellion breezes through their poorly planned defenses.

The "real" tension in the story, and where most of the conflict will arise, is between the rebel leaders themselves. Though there are several brilliant minds among them, they have very different ideas about the way to approach the war (and who should be in power after they inevitably win). The differing strategic ideas lead to infighting, and may even result in an inconvenient Imperial victory due to blatant disregard for each other's planning.

Though I don't want to beat the reader over the head with "the Empire is filled with idiots" every other paragraph, I feel like the story will come across as unfulfilling if I simply make the Empire regularly make mind-boggling logical errors without addressing the idea that that's part of the point. Where should I strike a balance between the two?

Alternatively, am I approaching this from the wrong direction, and need to have the Empire represent legitimate antagonistic force?

Original score: 28