Question: Did you actually defeat the Emperor? No the answers not as simple as "yes I actually did idiot".

No a closer example would be Russia fighting their ally Germany because Germany betrayed them. Just because you cannot comprehend the scenario doesn't make it ridiculous. Moreover it is almost as ridiculous to suggest that fighting a particular threat with a faction warrants their undivided, unyielding loyalty. Hell the Americans helped the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and that didn't exactly work out well did it? There's also that ancient device which talked about the Sith Jedi war. It was mentioned that it hadn't been fully translated. It's very likely (depending on who actually wrote it) that the details of this will be discussed. Given that its in Sith hands at the end of the story, bets are that it very much will be discussed in a particular way. Ok but its a pretty shaky foundation to the solid claim you're making. What you're essentially saying is that endings are absolute so long as they don't invalidate each other. Ultimately paths will invalidate each other in a natural way (counter attack, new developments, etc.). Otherwise you might as well say that Darth Decimus conquered Corellia the end. Developments could and did happen leading t the Republic killing him. Similarly, in the future, the Empire might strike back and reclaim Corellia. With the absence of further evidence discussion on objective canon is completely pointless. Which is basically what I've been saying all along. That doesn't invalidate discussion on canon, however, just makes objective "this is the definite situation" answers false. Do they? Balmorra is within Empire territory and thus within striking distance. Balmorras assets are one small orbital bombardment away from being utterly useless. Taris represented a massive investment in resources and (presumably promised) prospective refugee colony, a critical problem for the Republic as shown on Coruscant. Without it they'll have a lot of angry, homeless and poor sentients out for a roof on their head. Hell if Coruscants hit by an arab spring esque riot the Republic would be in trouble.

I'll laugh if, after all this Sidious V Vitiate discussion, it transpires that Sidious is Vitiate reborn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmU8XuFd2vU This is basically how Episode 3 should've been made.

So in essence you are saying that factions never switch sides. It is very possible for the Voss to reconsider their position if evidence of a past atrocity comes to light. Defeating a stronghold does not end the threat of their mortal enemies. They haven't exactly enacted a genocide on the Gornak have they? Maybe he had a really bad day? Maybe he just doesn't like the Imperials/has sympathies with the Republic? There are plenty of reasons for someone to dismiss one idea stronger than the other. His tone in isolation means nothing. Assuming that it does in fact invalidate them. You also assume that the decisions in an ending is set in stone and that nothing can happen later on to alter its outcome.

More to the point, Quinn so obviously bats for the other side it's astonishing he hasn't brought home the Ashes.

And the same shipyards. Honestly why Sienar Fleet Systems weren't pulled down or at least monitored defeats me. They are the Goldman Sachs of the SW universe.

If the occasion warrants it, it'll be used. Ergo me using all of the above devices. Are you honestly saying that no faction has ever switched sides in a war? Especially when something embarrassing comes to light? I'm not following your logic... How does it fit in? How does a dissenting/assenting voice on the Three equate to that scenario? You also make no reference to my other points.

I don't think the NSW actually succeeded in toppling the Republic. I haven't read it in depth as it was an utterly retarded series (look guys, Space Sailships!). Regarding Sith - what is Sith? The Galactic Empire style can be attributed to being Sith and so too can the retarded Old Sith Empire (at least their ships had masts, not sails I guess). Isn't part of Sith ideology subversion of your enemies? Ultimately conquering the Republic by force and subverting it would be the ideal Sith ideology. I don't see the Sith as winning and the Galaxy's Sith. The facts don't substantiate it. Rather I see it as the Sith winning outright and getting ultimately toppled, from within or without. Historically, a parallel in this viewpoint might be with Franco's Spain, whose fascist party won the civil war but ultimately transitioned to democracy on Franco's death.

And yet Palpatine managed this is barely half a decade... if it happened once it can happen again. Obi Wan's quote doesn't mean a lot. The Jedi can still be guardians of peace and justice in a vanquished Republic. Hell they can do a lot more than they were doing after the Treaty of Coruscant up until the end of the Cold War. They could even have a dark stain on their history. It certainly wouldn't be the first. I leave you with Palpatine's quote: "Once more the Sith will rule the Galaxy."

What if: Just throwing it out there. The point being that this isn't necessarily a Zion from the Matrix when we know what happens because it was a) explained before the actual event and b) the actual event was shown.

Wow, why so mad bro? If you actually read the entry you'd have seen that the reference to the NJO character is unsourced. That its referenced means nothing without seeing the original article. Also the destruction of a planet does not invalidate its usefulness. Look at Peragus. Saying one obscure character (out of an entire cast in a lore) came from there means absolutely nothing. Hell the reborn Jedi Exile came from Peragus. Does that means that he comes from a place of population, trees, sunshines and rainbows? Comments here in red.

To be fair, did you honestly expect any other likely outcome in KOTOR? That said, I expected them to either die on the way or pursue a holy grail which didn't exist. It's like the FO:NV quest involving the exact same thing, when Ghouls go to inordinate lengths to program rockets to go to their Promised Land. I fully expect a DLC in which we see their charred mangled corpses littering a wrecked crater.

Why can't SW's Force Choke companions during romancing. How can you Force Choke droids? Why can't JC's summon magic carpets during romancing? Why doesn't the BH burn himself when using Death from Above? Where does the IA keep all those long shards he sticks in people? Without the answers to these questions our lives will never be complete.

I blame the Supersize Me effect.

I loved that bit. Especially when you have a civilised chat with the Wilsaams, the jedi expresses shock that you're actually civilised and reluctance to let you go unpunished, then you butcher him. I also loved the bit in General Organa's room when you two say: "Sith, why did you kill my men just to parlay?" "I doubt you'd have returned my call"

Interesting points you raise there. Comments in red.

Since when did genre comparisons equate to direct comparison between writers? By that logic I'd be comparing this story to STO's story. Or WoW's story to Game of Thrones. Neither of them hold true.

I highly recommend the Sith Warrior's storyline as well. It's fairly epic as far as SWTOR storylines go and puts a lot of things into context.

Comments in red.

Good point. However,

Indeed, but we don't know whether there's more advantage for him to tell the cathartic truth or lie in a cathartic way.

Except the bit in Zash's chamber where he explains that all of Zash's powerbase must die. Given that you are part of her powerbase you and your apprentices are a loose end. Just because he doesn't use the crude language of "loose end" doesn't mean he doesn't actually say something to that effect. How? How is this less petty than, say, Baras wanting to remove Vengean's power base? Or wanting to sack everyone on a closed down site? Because he's scared? And can't actually do it? Because he values his life more than his traditions? Just because he's a personality that's as flawed and hypocritical as most people's doesn't mean the story is flawed. In many cases it makes the story better. In the SI's case it's the whole story (Lord knows the SI's story has nothing else to go on). Right I guess you weren't keen on the Terminator or No Country for Old Men. Fair enough, but holding your opinions up to being an objective standard is rarely a good idea. To Thanaton, your character is essentially T-1000 or, more appropriately, Anton Chiggurh. You can't be bargained with, can't be reasoned with, don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And you absolutely will not stop, ever, until he is dead. Wow that's being pedantic. I mean if you're going to nitpick to that level there's nothing much for me to say. I'm guessing though you said the same thing: - About Bastilla's Battle Meditation? - Or Jaesa's special talent? - Or the end of Bioshock when you become a Big Daddy with no discernible benefits? - Or the fact that, despite being the God of Madness in Oblivion, you had no discernible powers? - Or that, despite you miraculously surviving the glowing green radioactive chamber in Fallout 3, a trip into Vault 87's entrance will gib you. - Or Sephiroth who, despite being built up to be the World Ender and basking in its energy for quite some time, is easily gibbed? If so, hats off to the consistency of your thinking, though you might expect a bit too much from your games. Examples? You're putting words into my mouth. I didn't say its a great story. The SI's part and his companions' stories are rubbish. But Thanaton's own story is watertight and that alone makes the story interesting. You put way too much stock on what's said and done in the most literal sense. It never occurs to you that characters might be lying and through their teeth. Or that inferences and conjecture are what makes a good story. Lovecraft for instance is mostly about inferences, what isn't said as much about what is said.

DID Lucas even create the original series? Or did he just rake the money from having the merchandise rights?

Whiiiiich might be complete and utter lies. He's a Sith everyone, since when did you actually trust a Sith to be anything but be untrustworthy? To OP: Baras may be fat but he's not so fat to protect against the obvious disemboweling he got with your SW's lightsaber. Sure he could become a ghost but Darth Nox might... headhunt him before he goes on any grand agenda of revenge. I'm guessing Darth Nox's healthcare options were just irresistible. Voice of the Emperor could just be an ability albeit a metaphoric one. Hell he has to have some substantiation to his claim otherwise who'd believe him. Thanaton had enough trouble trying to convince the council through reasoned debate and yet, despite being as temperamentally tolerable as Baras, has little success. Frankly how he managed to capture the Emperor's Voice is anyone's guess. The guy's an utter idiot and seems to be outdone at almost every turn in the SW's storyline. Honestly, if it weren't for the SW, Nomen Karr and Xerender would be running rings around Baras. Comparisons to Darth Vader are interesting but read too much into imo. I sense it more as a metaphoric comparison, one used to justify why the SW is so ******ed and why his story is so much more interesting.