You ever hear about 'living in the now' buddy!? Don't let the inevitable bring you down when there are so many people you can force choke to death until that time!

Of the famous Crunch Commandos led by the dashing hero Captain Crunch? That would be an impressive character And for names in general, I go by either taking an admired person from history and altering it a bit or just spout out sounds until they form into a cool enough sounding name

Republic: If I was a force sensitive most likely a Jedi, but one that pushes for closer integration into the Republic itself. If not, then most likely a diplomat or a trooper. Depends on how I can best serve the Republic. Empire: If force sensitive, then a Sith that tries to eliminate the restrictions put on aliens. Most likely get killed after siding with Malgus. If not, then I could see myself serving by making propaganda for the empire. Or just go be a trooper/cannon fodder for Sith XD.

I don't think it's about people wanting the bad guys to win, just that it doesn't make logical sense for the empire to just disappear after the emperor's death. This would most likely make the imperial remnant the bad guys for the new trilogy. It would be cool if they went with someone like Natasi Daala unifying the various fighting factions to try and take full control of the galaxy again, while fighting the New Republic and the New Jedi Order.

You could say the same for Malak though, who seems to be ranked pretty high on the list. And I feel that beating Jerec and his buddies is a better feat than most think, since Jerec himself seems to be a bit under-rated. It's not like the guy was a pushover, beating a guy Yoda partially trained and gave the rank of master to (Qu Rahn) as well as being one of the more powerful and higher ranked members of the empire even if he wasn't as strong as Vader. ESB Luke may have been able to do the same, but he is also the son of the chosen one and had more training from Obi-Wan and Yoda than Kyle did with Rahn. And even in the case of Caedus it may have been a loss for Kyle, but I remember Caedus saying something similar to him wishing that he had his head or something as a trophy from a decent opponent. Still pretty good praise for the second most powerful guy in the galaxy.

The fan-boy in me wants to see Kyle Katarn on the list, or at least in the pool of candidates. He was skilled enough to have beaten Jerec and his cronies with little training then went on to become the Battlemaster of Luke's order, but everyone I talk to says he sucks because he lost to Caedus! If only he didn't slip on that banana peel during the fight! XD

Now what I'm curious about is the games set in the time period of the movies. I think I heard that TFU was now not considered a part of the canon, but is that because it is a game or because its interpretation of the rebel alliance's origins is now wrong? What does it mean concerning other games and characters in this time period, like Dark Forces/Kyle Katarn? Since the inquisitors are canon, does that mean that Jerec is canon? Or is he technically non-canon until they choose to bring him and Kyle into the new stuff?

I fail to see how attacking a planet that is building war droids and has your people captured and about to be executed without even consulting you is "instigating". I can understand being somewhat wary when your government suddenly whips out a clone army, but when the war started just as suddenly and it's obvious that the droids were built beforehand as well it shows just how desperate the republic was. The droid army build-up happened BEFORE the clone army was unleashed, so what would have happened if the did NOT have the army? They would have been held at gunpoint and forced to give in to separatist demands, which under Palpatine would have meant an empire for him anyway. And on the idea of centralized power yes it does make it more possible for an autocratic force to rise, but it is also more efficient than a loose organization such as the Confederate States of America and the Articles of Confederation in the earliest part of independent US history. In both cases it was incredibly difficult for the head of state to both gather taxes, soldiers, and making it all work since some states had different currencies, and on a galactic scale imagine how many different currencies and laws you would have to deal with. Another issue with such a loose system is that it can lead to potential conflict within, since the main government has no real authority in telling the member planets what to do. The Republic may be unfair sometimes to non-member planets, but at least there is not as much potential galactic war. If there is conflict between two or more systems in the Confederacy, how can the central government claim the authority to put an end to it? The Separatists aren't all the idealists people are making them out to be, and Dooku said a lot of things that were also meant to support his master's plan just as much as winning the war. His propaganda is of course going to put the Republic in an un-fixable light, but that does not mean it's the complete truth. No matter what is said, it's true that the Republic was in desperate need of fixing, but splitting the galaxy is not going to suddenly change that. Imagine if some of these idealists went to someone like Padme or Organa and stated their grievances, since either one would listen and bring it to public attention, especially effective for Padme since she is known throughout the galaxy for the Naboo incident. With the support of the separatists still in the Republic as well as the common citizens who were dissatisfied it's most likely that an offensive against the blatant corruption in the senate could have been mounted. While it's difficult to do so, it is still possible to create change even in the face of corruption as long as republican tradition still exists, which it would since Palpatine would not have an excuse to seize power. Since the war had already started however, leaving the Republic to go with the separatists simply robs Palpatine's opposition of another voice, leaving only those who want or don't mind him in power. Ending the war as soon as possible is the only way to prevent such drastic actions, and siding with the Republic is the only way to preserve a more efficient united galaxy.

Robot Chicken: Star Wars FTW! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qAKXK_aLeA (1:27)

I did not say the separatists were to listen to the republic, but to address their complaints in other ways. How is my argument bizarre when it is the case for any single civil war to ever occur? There are two sides and neither is going to immediately give in to the arguments or desires of the other, which is how the civil war actually starts, and placating the other side usually end up with that side pushing for even more, as we've seen throughout history. I never said the Republic was completely without fault, but in our past people have addressed their serious issues without supporting violent uprising. Saying that the separatists acted rashly, but it's still the republic's fault for not listening is condoning the violence they used to get what they wanted. And the war started because the separatists wanted it to. Do you think they put Anakin, Obi-Wan, AND A SENATOR on trial (for espionage, but didn't even consult the republic or anyone), as well as building up a droid army and the plans for the death star, for fun? Padme told Poggle that it was an act of war, and he laughed! If the clones did not show up, where would the three of them be? How would the galaxy see their deaths? Should the Republic have declined the offer for the army when the separatists were obviously building their own? If the separatists were truly out for peace, freedom, and all the other stuff people attribute to them simply because they're "rebels" fighting oppression, then why didn't they instead try to rally support from the citizens and try to get more power in the senate? I'm sure with their money they could easily use the corrupt senate to get what they wanted, which is how dirty politics usually goes. Instead they went for the option that would give them the most power if they succeeded and plunged the galaxy into war. As for Dooku? I consider myself an idealist and I love Dooku as a character, but in the end even he wasn't completely convinced with his own arguments. Yoda was SO close to bringing Dooku back to the Jedi order that if Anakin had not shown up (thanks to Palpatine) the separatists would have most likely lost their head of state. Sure he is right in that the republic needed a major overhaul, but is it harder to get more honest people into the senate like Padme and her allies or to fight a huge civil war? Isn't the prelude of the war what put Palpatine into his supreme power (thanks Jar Jar )? So by going to war you've forced the republic to put their power into one ruler, as if he was a Roman Dictator, and like the ancient republic not all are so willing to give up such power and instead reach for more. By starting the war Dooku has pushed the republic even further down the path so many disliked. And how can you say that supporting the republic is supporting its corruption, but then say you can support the separatists without supporting their atrocities and choices? Why can we not support unity in the galaxy AND want to fight the corruption within it? Is it really better to create multiple large bodies of government in a huge galaxy that can continue to fight down the road even after the first war ends, or try and fix the single entity in the first place? Once the separatists won it would not have immediately meant peace and would have most likely resulted in more wars (especially when both sides begin to build super-weapons in their inevitable cold war. I have other arguments, but my response is already too long! XD P.S. I love this thread, since good civil debate is always better than the yelling and name-calling most political threads fall into

I would probably stick with the Republic. Sure their is distaste for the corruption found in the government, but the attack on Naboo in episode 1 by the Trade Federation would make things pretty clear for me where the real intentions of many separatists lie. These are all mega-corporations who were using present dislike of the Republic to try and break away from its heavy taxes. As Padme also said, it was "business becoming government", and we all know that it's not usually the common people that businesses look out for. Sure the sudden appearance of a clone army might be worrisome for many, but the invasion of Naboo made it obvious that a military build-up might become a necessity for the Republic and I'm sure for many it simply seemed like they were preparing for the worst instead of building some "oppressive" clone army. And while the Jedi are mysterious, anyone who knew the history of the Republic could see that they've saved the galaxy many times. There are a bunch of other reasons I have for my choice, some of them simply personal, but I'll throw this out there; How hard did the separatists REALLY try to address their complaints before allowing Dooku to put them on a path to war? A war that tore the galaxy apart and saw countless die, keep in mind.

T-Canon is more recent right? So now the new Rebels series could potentially out-canon The Force Unleashed if they contradict? I found the first series to be better, and the fight between Anakin and Ventress in it amazing. Just as was said though, we all got opinions and tastes.

I thought that the new series was supposed to take place in the middle of the 2003 series. In that one there is a montage going between Anakin's knighting and up to a planetary siege right before the battle of Coruscant, and I heard somewhere that the new series and the movie before it took place in that time-skip. Could be wrong though.

To be honest I never liked Caedus (and it's not because he beat Kyle!), but I always thought that his story is what Anakin's should have been like in a few aspects. Anakin was fed this idea of Sith "selflessness" by the end of EP III, but it would have been more interesting if we saw this in the earlier movies too.

I'm pretty sure the person he was talking about in that instance was Malak, since they both talk about how alone and dark things seemed at the time of defeat/death. I personally believe that Revan should be allowed to just stay dead, but the Revanites are an interesting faction in the empire that should be given one more chance at the spotlight. To further give evidence of the empire's downfall through infighting/civil war, maybe give them a flashpoint. Some of them could have heard rumors of Revan's return and chose to rise up against the empire, led by some guy who could or might not be Revan (most likely a false one). Or maybe he came into contact with some of them and gave them instructions to follow after his death, since he was a strategist who liked to cover all of his bases. Maybe he told them to try and overthrow the Imperial government knowing fully well that they would fail, but hope that they do enough damage to give the republic an advantage. Pubs could help them get their coup started while Imps could hunt them down and kill them/foil their plans.

It makes sense for someone who lived in the era of Sidious and his Galactic Empire to take a point of view like this, since one of his pieces of propaganda was that his empire was bringing peace and order to the galaxy. This seemed like Anakin's point of view s well by the end of EP III after he took the offer of power and eliminated the enemy leadership, thus ending the destructive war. The quote itself is interesting, but for the most part it seems like simple justification/manipulation. If this is Lumiya talking to Jacen then it makes sense to try and convince someone from the Jedi POV that the Sith are just as heroic in their own way in saving the galaxy. The idea of a despised hero taking power to save everyone seems quite noble since it involves a lot of sacrifice on the part of the "hero", but I think that in most situations it doesn't make as much sense. Yes a Sith can try to fight for noble goals, but their brutality and "lust for power" will always separate them from those who try to do it responsibly and with as little conflict as possible. It's interesting, but for the most part I would say that they can not be the "good guys" or morally justified since they either have never tried to or refuse to try and do it the Jedi way. This is all subject to people's POV's however, so there are some who might see them as heroes, even though the Jedi have actually brought peace to the galaxy where the Sith only bring oppressive "protection".

I can definitely see the Kyle Katarn influence, which makes me glad on one hand since he's my favorite character. On the other hand I hope this isn't his replacement, since his background story is pretty good and a lot more original than than Kanan's. I will hold out hope for Kyle to survive the EU changes

I have not before now, but they sound interesting. It's just another reason for me to actually go through the agent story line. People have already pretty much summed up why this could be thought. And while I don't agree with the Circle, I was just using it as a brutal decision the Republic could make to deal with what many could see as a problem. I would not assume they're smarter, since you know what they say about doing that. I think it would be interesting to see the republic with its own force order, like the imperial knights. That's certainly true, but from the perspective of regular people who can look back and see the causes of these wars there is a pattern to the force-driven ones where the wars outside of the Jedi-Sith conflicts have their own unique circumstances and reasons.

It's this constant infighting between the light and dark side followers that has started almost every major war in SW. I know that during the Vong war there were a lot of anti-jedi people, but I've always wondered why no one has noticed that and has done something drastic about it. It would be interesting to see a galaxy sick and tired of the Jedi and Sith. I can see the republic doing the same thing as the Fel Empire and form some organization of force-users loyal to them instead of the Jedi or Sith, not allow the Jedi to recruit force-sensitive individuals, and pretty much outlaw non-registered force-users. Almost like the Circle of Magi in Dragon Age.

I'm pretty sure that Quinn's storyline and the situation on Corellia (as well as many other missions) show that imperial officers are not all great strategists and/or tacticians. There are many quality men and women, but the republic has many as well. Not enough in the empire to truly overwhelm this category. And no matter what advantage they have, Sith infighting ruins it all. If the emperor was actually in it for the empire and the Sith weren't constantly killing each other then maybe the empire could win. And to the comment about German military might, I think it's about the idea that Hitler was a mad genius that ruled over a country that was more advanced in every way and that every German soldier was a super-stormtrooper. All the WW2 shows are to blame for that, since it's more dramatic to pump up the threat and still have us win.

For me, I don't think you need to really focus on the story of the class for your character. I try to do what my character would do as much as I can in the class story, but outside of that is where I really forge my character. I've seen some people get so focused on making the class story fit their character that they start saying their person is the one that "killed ___" when everyone does that at some point. One of my characters is an inquisitor, but being a slave doesn't work for his story so the whole inquisitor back-story is ignored. Of course it does still need to be somewhat lore appropriate, since it ruins the character to say something like "they are the secret son of the famous ___"

Power doesn't have to be imposing, it can be simple influence as well. One of the illusions that the strong believe is that to be so they have to step on the weak instead of working alongside them or uplifting them. The Sith might be powerful in their own martial ways, but the Jedi are not powerless. The Sith lose every time in the end for a reason. I can see why the Jedi are considered boring by many though. The Sith are about personal freedom and power, which a lot of us look at and like, and their power strikes a chord. If there were some Jedi out there who actually inspired people in their ways, maybe like a Jedi so committed to non-violence that he never even builds a lightsaber, more people would look on them favorably. So far the only Jedi that inspire are the ones that have gone to battle for their beliefs like Revan or the Jedi master who fought to the last man on Bothawui.

I've never been a big fan of Maul or TCW, and think he should have died in EP 1 (Just like Boba should have in ROTJ), but it's good to see that they aren't going to leave stuff unanswered with him. It's always annoying when things get left open and unresolved. I did see one clip of the series where Maul and his brother were beaten by Sidious, and am curious as to what happened after that. Wouldn't Sidious have just killed him then and ended his problem once and for all? Sorry for throwing my opinions in there

To me the empire as an organization simply follows a more autocratic route, which has its own flaws and merits when compared to a republic, but the practices of this empire are indeed bad. Between the two, which one brings the most benefit to the galaxy as a whole? The Republic The practices of the Sith demands that one be allowed to pursue their wants, and that only the strong can rise to power to get what they want. Their desire for power puts them in a moral position where it is right for them to do whatever they need to achieve this, and it is no mere coincidence that the empire that puts forth these ideas has more people that we would consider to be sociopaths. We all know that the Sith mentality always puts them at odds with each other sooner or later, and this means that even if the empire were to win sooner or later there would be a lot of infighting or even open civil war. The Republic has dealt with civil wars as we all know, but they are nowhere as frequent as the infighting between Sith. A galaxy with a Sith ruling class means possible devastation...unless there is a strong enough leader to unite them. Which brings me to the emperor himself. He is a perfect example of why the Sith teachings are dangerous, since his goal is what all Sith really want; ultimate power and immortality. He is willing to destroy most, if not all, life in the galaxy in order to achieve his own goals. So from the perspective of the galaxy as a whole and the advancement of the majority of its peoples, the Sith was is bad. Now if the empire was run by non-Sith it could be a different story, like when people like Gilad Pallaeon ran things in the empire in the post-ROTJ era. They give the empire more credence as an actually effective government that could bring peace the galaxy.

I disagree because the sack of Coruscant was most likely a huge blow to the morale of the republic, and continuing the war would have allowed the Sith to take advantage of it. The republic would still have to deal with separatism with people either trying to break away or side with the empire, who looks almost unbeatable in taking the enemy's capital-world. They would then be forced to redirect their forces in retaking the planet, allowing the empire to try and win everywhere else. And while wars are about endurance they are about a lot of other factors as well that can either circumvent the enemy's endurance or break it down. The peace simply allowed the empire's weaknesses to fester and become it's downfall. The Sith during the war probably had a lot less infighting since they were fighting a direct enemy, which is once again why the treaty was a mistake to me. Sith like Malgus would not have broken away from the empire, the emperor would have had time to complete his ritual anyway, and for people looking to gain power victories in war is a great way to build support for yourself. It is true that military wise the empire and republic are similar, but it was their initial advantage of surprise mixed with subterfuge and brutality that gave the empire an edge in the war against the endurance of the republic. The dread masters could be considered an advantage though, since it was said they could turn the tide against an entire fleet. To me the republic can lose, but only if you can get people to want to break away. After the attack on Coruscant, the empire should have been encouraging people to break away from the republic while still fighting those that stood with them. Using their usual subterfuge mixed with some diplomacy and using their Chiss allies as an example of their willingness to cooperate instead of conquer along with their occupation of Coruscant I'm sure some of the republic would try and either leave to join the empire or try and make deal with them. At this point there is no victory for the empire since it gave the republic breathing room and turned it into a one-upsmanship contest while facing its own weaknesses, but I think that if they didn't sign the treaty they could have held onto their gains (maybe lose Coruscant to the republic after their counterattack) and force the republic against the wall before the empire's own weaknesses had the time to eat it from the inside.