Cythereal Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Yes, but even the lightside ones go after the innocent. Folk hero doesn't mean they really are heroes. "Go after this Jedi!" "What he do?" "He saved countless lives that I was trying to kill." "You got it!" "Go after this Jedi?" "What did he do?" "Killed ****loads of Mandalorians and Imperials during the war. It's payback time." "Can do!" You misunderstood my point. Only the Jedi themselves hold to the traditional idea of light-side, dark-side in this game. Those terms don't mean the same thing when applied to the other classes. The hunter is never sent after truly innocent targets. Their marks include assassins, pirates, and officers of an interstellar nation that the hunter's primary employer is at war with. The hunter can spare the Master's padawan at the end of Act 1 because she is innocent by the hunter's reckoning. Expecting the hunter, or any other class for that matter, to adhere to the same morality as the Jedi is a mistake even if it's still called light-side and dark-side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 "Go after this Jedi?" "What did he do?" "Killed ****loads of Mandalorians and Imperials during the war. It's payback time." "Can do!" You misunderstood my point. Only the Jedi themselves hold to the traditional idea of light-side, dark-side in this game. Those terms don't mean the same thing when applied to the other classes. The hunter is never sent after truly innocent targets. Their marks include assassins, pirates, and officers of an interstellar nation that the hunter's primary employer is at war with. The hunter can spare the Master's padawan at the end of Act 1 because she is innocent by the hunter's reckoning. Expecting the hunter, or any other class for that matter, to adhere to the same morality as the Jedi is a mistake even if it's still called light-side and dark-side. Killed enemies during a war! Then get upset and angry when people try to kill the BH "Nothing personal, it's just a job." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cythereal Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 Killed enemies during a war! Then get upset and angry when people try to kill the BH "Nothing personal, it's just a job." The hunter only gets irritated with anyone coming after her when it's clear that there's a personal vendetta going on. Jun Seros makes it clear from his first appearance that this is not just a job, this is a personal grudge. Mako really hates Tarro Blood, but the LS hunter's problems with the guy have nothing to do with the fact that he's trying to kill them (the hunter can repeatedly state throughout the story that that in itself doesn't bother her, it's an occupational hazard) and much more to do with him killing Braden and Jory, and the cowardly, dishonorable tactics he uses. The light side hunter is an honorable warrior of profound integrity and a woman of her word who can and does turn down or creatively interpret contracts she feels are illegitimate, target someone who doesn't deserve it, or the client deceived her. Everyone else? Fair game, if the contract is legit. You don't earn a death mark from the Sith Empire or Mandalorians for opening a kitten orphanage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutGrndZero Posted September 2, 2015 Share Posted September 2, 2015 (edited) The hunter only gets irritated with anyone coming after her when it's clear that there's a personal vendetta going on. Jun Seros makes it clear from his first appearance that this is not just a job, this is a personal grudge. Mako really hates Tarro Blood, but the LS hunter's problems with the guy have nothing to do with the fact that he's trying to kill them (the hunter can repeatedly state throughout the story that that in itself doesn't bother her, it's an occupational hazard) and much more to do with him killing Braden and Jory, and the cowardly, dishonorable tactics he uses. The light side hunter is an honorable warrior of profound integrity and a woman of her word who can and does turn down or creatively interpret contracts she feels are illegitimate, target someone who doesn't deserve it, or the client deceived her. Everyone else? Fair game, if the contract is legit. You don't earn a death mark from the Sith Empire or Mandalorians for opening a kitten orphanage. Exactly, the way I played my first Bounty Hunter (a female rattakki mercenary) was simple. I followed the Bounty Hunter's Creed. At all times, with only two exceptions. 1. I killed The Eidolon because I agreed with Mako, in this case it's better to kill him than to hand him to the Hutts to be tortured to death for weeks. Plus, it's what he wanted. This technically is not breaking the Creed since the Empire specifically wanted him dead, whereas giving him to the Hutts is a secondary bounty that doesn't conflict with the first one... 2. On Hoth with the Trandoshan. I killed him. Because, you don't capture trandoshans due to their religious beliefs. The fact that Usajjaya doesn't beleive in The Scorekeeper doesn't matter, honor says that she respect the trandoshan beliefs, and that means kill him so he can keep his points. Again, this may be breaking the Creed, I don't remember if the guy was wanted alive or dead, but even if he was wanted alive he is still at that point unarmed and helpless, this is the honorable time to be breaking the Creed. Other than those two times, if it was possible to bring them in alive, I did. Until then end when the Republic ticked me off... then it was personal, not a job as others said above. They all died. Edited September 2, 2015 by AbsolutGrndZero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I shall now play through BH again and check it out again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spetulhu Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 The hunter only gets irritated with anyone coming after her when it's clear that there's a personal vendetta going on. Jun Seros makes it clear from his first appearance that this is not just a job, this is a personal grudge. Aye, so much this. You did take out that one Jedi Master, but if you followed the code you spared his apprentice. Next thing you hear about it is Jun Seros has arranged for that poor apprentice to lead a few troopers in your arrest! What was he thinking? Maybe he thought the apprentice could succeed where the master failed? No. IMO he coldly sent that girl to her death just so he'd have one more thing to accuse you of, one more thing to fuel his (certainly Dark Side) rage and hatred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachimthbear Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Their marks include assassins, pirates, and officers of an interstellar nation that the hunter's primary employer is at war with. The hunter can spare the Master's padawan at the end of Act 1 because she is innocent by the hunter's reckoning. Which of those applies to the Jedi (and everyone else on the ship) at the end of act 1, though? There's no formal state of war at that stage in the story, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldVengeance Posted September 3, 2015 Author Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) Which of those applies to the Jedi (and everyone else on the ship) at the end of act 1, though? There's no formal state of war at that stage in the story, is there? No there isn't. It's pretty hard for me to see Jun Serros as being in the wrong for coming after the Bounty Hunter or killing the other Champions of the Great Hunt. They're the galaxy's most famous murderers. And they killed his fellow Jedi. And even less so for taking their friends being killed personally. Almost the entire first act of the Bounty Hunter story was about the personal animosity between the Hunter and Tarro Blood. Edited September 3, 2015 by OldVengeance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonalius Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 No there isn't. It's pretty hard for me to see Jun Serros as being in the wrong for coming after the Bounty Hunter or killing the other Champions of the Great Hunt. They're the galaxy's most famous murderers. And they killed his fellow Jedi. It's not that he pursued our character, its the way he did so. He framed us. He lied to the Supreme Chancellor. He set traps. He showed no remorse for the people he sent to their deaths against us. He never attempted to confront us himself. Basically, he pretty much used Dark Side methodology against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cythereal Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 Which of those applies to the Jedi (and everyone else on the ship) at the end of act 1, though? There's no formal state of war at that stage in the story, is there? He killed lots of people during the first war, so Mandalore made him the ultimate objective of the Great Hunt. Just one of many ways the Treaty of Coruscant breaks down during Act 1, and as far as the bounty hunter is concerned that stuff is all on the employer. The law is protecting this man who killed hundreds if not thousands of Mandalorians during the war, so you the bounty hunter are sent to make things right. Whether you think the Mandalorians are themselves in the right in that situation is another question that doesn't have much to do with the bounty hunter herself. She's hired to bring justice to someone who's escaped it. And even less so for taking their friends being killed personally. Almost the entire first act of the Bounty Hunter story was about the personal animosity between the Hunter and Tarro Blood. The hunter doesn't necessarily have to hate Tarro Blood. Tarro Blood strikes first and keeps striking. The hunter wouldn't have a clue who he was if he didn't murder the hunter's friends and keep trying to kill her and discredit the entire Great Hunt. The hunter can reciprocate the vendetta, or can choose not to and disregard him as a nuisance who clearly lacks the ability to win the Hunt fairly. It's pretty hard for me to see Jun Serros as being in the wrong for coming after the Bounty Hunter or killing the other Champions of the Great Hunt. They're the galaxy's most famous murderers. And they killed his fellow Jedi. Most famous murderers? The Champions are pretty low on the totem pole next to war heroes/criminals, Jedi, and Sith. Seros goes after them to go after the hunter because they killed his friend. The hunter never once moves against Seros or any of his friends or allies, never tries to smear his name, and doesn't even know who he is until the hunter is in Darth Tormen's employ - employment Seros forces her into. Seros lets his personal connection to the Jedi master lure him into a personal vendetta where he uses any and all means to avenge his friend. The hunter can even note in the final confrontation that she doesn't even think he's wrong to want revenge, but the vendetta and confrontation is of his own making. He's the one who made the hunter an enemy and drove her into the arms of Darth Tormen. He's the one who guaranteed she'd be hitting back against the Republic and Jedi in response to his efforts to kill her. It's poetic, really. Jun Seros' quest for revenge leads to his death. You'd think the Jedi Council would have something to say about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachimthbear Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 (edited) It's not that he pursued our character, its the way he did so. He framed us. He lied to the Supreme Chancellor. He set traps. He showed no remorse for the people he sent to their deaths against us. He never attempted to confront us himself. Basically, he pretty much used Dark Side methodology against us. I could be remembering this all wrong, but when Seros first tries to have you arrested, it's entirely for stuff you did do (blowing up that ship and everyone on it), and the arresting Jedi gives you every chance to come in peacefully. You can't put responsibility for the deaths of the people the Bounty Hunter kills in that scene on the guy who sent them. Not defending the stuff that comes after that, but the Bounty Hunter has by then already left a trail of bodies in the course of resisting arrest. Edit: He killed lots of people during the first war, so Mandalore made him the ultimate objective of the Great Hunt. Just one of many ways the Treaty of Coruscant breaks down during Act 1, and as far as the bounty hunter is concerned that stuff is all on the employer. The law is protecting this man who killed hundreds if not thousands of Mandalorians during the war, so you the bounty hunter are sent to make things right. In what sense does this "make things right"? Is being a soldier and killing your enemy in war a crime? If so then every Mandalorian war veteran is a criminal. Plus, again, there's everyone else on the ship, and you don't even check to see who's on that list - they're all condemned with the main target. Edited September 3, 2015 by Joachimthbear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cythereal Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 I could be remembering this all wrong, but when Seros first tries to have you arrested, it's entirely for stuff you did do (blowing up that ship and everyone on it), and the arresting Jedi gives you every chance to come in peacefully. You can't put responsibility for the deaths of the people the Bounty Hunter kills in that scene on the guy who sent them. Not defending the stuff that comes after that, but the Bounty Hunter has by then already left a trail of bodies in the course of resisting arrest. What reason does the bounty hunter have to let themselves be arrested? You can tell him and the people he sends after you that you aren't leaving with them but if they choose to attack they will die. The hunter is under no moral obligation to surrender. Would a Jedi surrender to a Sith demanding she submit for killing a Sith Lord? Edit: In what sense does this "make things right"? Is being a soldier and killing your enemy in war a crime? If so then every Mandalorian war veteran is a criminal. Plus, again, there's everyone else on the ship, and you don't even check to see who's on that list - they're all condemned with the main target. If you want to go this route, everyone who's ever killed anyone in wartime is a war criminal. The crew of the ship choose to attack you, and that's their lookout. Mandalorian honor and justice demands the man die for what he has done. Does anyone consider the Trooper, Jedi Consular, or Jedi Knight a bad person for storming an Imperial dreadnought at the end of their Act 1 story? If a Sith Lord popped up in Act 2 and told them they're under arrest, would anyone consider them guilty for killing the people sent to arrest them? Do they not bear responsibility for killing enormous numbers of people? All these arguments really boil down to is the question of which if any ideas of justice are valid. Is the Jedi idea of justice the only valid form of justice? How about Republic justice? Or Sith justice? Or Imperial justice? Or Mandalorian justice? Or Trandoshan justice? Or Rakatan justice? Some of the above? None of the above? All of the above? What makes justice just? Feel free to go chase that argument in circles. You won't get anywhere. The bounty hunter undoubtedly is unjust and in the wrong in the eyes of the Republic and Jedi. Those aren't the hunter's eyes, though, or the eyes through which the hunter's story is told and LS/DS evaluated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cythereal Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 In fact, there's a neat mirror to that whole thing of "If the bounty hunter was truly light-side they'd have submitted to Jun Seros." Fine. If we're going to hold everyone to that standard, if the Jedi Knight was truly light-side they'd have submitted to Darth Angral. The Jedi Knight kills Angral's son, not during a time of war, which leads Angral to demand the Knight surrender and answer for that death. The Knight refuses. By the light of this anti-hunter argument, every death Angral causes is therefore the Knight's fault. The destruction of Uphrades is the Knight's fault. Everything Angral does, he does because the man or woman who killed his son refused to be arrested and kills everyone sent to arrest them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachimthbear Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 What reason does the bounty hunter have to let themselves be arrested? That depends. Hypothetically, is there any authority in the galaxy to whom the LS Bounty Hunter would submit for investigation of his/her actions? All these arguments really boil down to is the question of which if any ideas of justice are valid. Is the Jedi idea of justice the only valid form of justice? How about Republic justice? Or Sith justice? Or Imperial justice? Or Mandalorian justice? Or Trandoshan justice? Or Rakatan justice? Some of the above? None of the above? All of the above? What makes justice just? I can agree that this is a tangled issue without a lot of clear-cut answers. As far as I can tell the question is, what is the light side Bounty Hunter's idea of justice, and did Kellian Jarro deserve to die according to it? See: Mandalorian honor and justice demands the man die for what he has done. But what Jarro has done is kill Mandalorians in battle - not even when he was attacking them, but in the defense of Coruscant, during an invasion that the Empire launched while peace negotiations were taking place elsewhere. They were the aggressors and he killed them while defending his home. Under Mandalorian justice, is that a crime? Does the LS Bounty Hunter agree? Does anyone consider the Trooper, Jedi Consular, or Jedi Knight a bad person for storming an Imperial dreadnought at the end of their Act 1 story? If a Sith Lord popped up in Act 2 and told them they're under arrest, would anyone consider them guilty for killing the people sent to arrest them? Do they not bear responsibility for killing enormous numbers of people? I can't speak to the Trooper example since I haven't played that part of the storyline, but by the time the Jedi Knight boards Angral's ship, the Empire has already disavowed Angral and his actions, and the Consular's battle at the end of Act 1 is against a Sith spirit who doesn't seem to be aligned with the Empire (his ship appears Imperial-built but is crewed by brainwashed Republic troops). Neither of those sounds like an act of war against the Empire, and both involve attacking a direct and immediate threat. The situation with Jarro is completely different: he is aboard a Republic vessel, the soldiers who the Bounter Hunter kills are Republic soldiers, and Jarro is explicitly not being targeted for any threat he poses, or even might pose in the future. Fine. If we're going to hold everyone to that standard, if the Jedi Knight was truly light-side they'd have submitted to Darth Angral. The Jedi Knight kills Angral's son, not during a time of war, which leads Angral to demand the Knight surrender and answer for that death. The Knight refuses. Lord Tarnis committed a long series of crimes on Coruscant, none of which can be compared to normal military action. The Knight (assuming Light Side) would have accepted his surrender, or even let him go if it was a choice between capturing him or the Planet Prison; top priority was not allowing him to use a stolen superweapon against the galaxy's most heavily populated world. Tarnis was the aggressor and forced a fight to the death. The Bounty Hunter, on the other hand, sought Jarro out in order to kill him - even if Jarro struck first during their fight, he was clearly defending himself and those around him. By the light of this anti-hunter argument, every death Angral causes is therefore the Knight's fault. The destruction of Uphrades is the Knight's fault. Everything Angral does, he does because the man or woman who killed his son refused to be arrested and kills everyone sent to arrest them. I didn't say that all the deaths were on the Bounty Hunter, just the first set. I fully agree that Seros went way too far and the Hunter's actions then were self defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldVengeance Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 Most famous murderers? The Champions are pretty low on the totem pole next to war heroes/criminals, Jedi, and Sith. Seros goes after them to go after the hunter because they killed his friend. The hunter never once moves against Seros or any of his friends or allies, never tries to smear his name, and doesn't even know who he is until the hunter is in Darth Tormen's employ - employment Seros forces her into. Seros lets his personal connection to the Jedi master lure him into a personal vendetta where he uses any and all means to avenge his friend. The hunter can even note in the final confrontation that she doesn't even think he's wrong to want revenge, but the vendetta and confrontation is of his own making. He's the one who made the hunter an enemy and drove her into the arms of Darth Tormen. He's the one who guaranteed she'd be hitting back against the Republic and Jedi in response to his efforts to kill her. It was an awkward way to put it perhaps, but the reason that the Champions are famous is specifically because they were the few winners of the galaxy's premier murder competition. Seros methods might be bad, but the Hunter is the one that made themselves his enemy by killing his friend. In fact, there's a neat mirror to that whole thing of "If the bounty hunter was truly light-side they'd have submitted to Jun Seros." Fine. If we're going to hold everyone to that standard, if the Jedi Knight was truly light-side they'd have submitted to Darth Angral. The Jedi Knight kills Angral's son, not during a time of war, which leads Angral to demand the Knight surrender and answer for that death. The Knight refuses. By the light of this anti-hunter argument, every death Angral causes is therefore the Knight's fault. The destruction of Uphrades is the Knight's fault. Everything Angral does, he does because the man or woman who killed his son refused to be arrested and kills everyone sent to arrest them. Except Tarnis was the aggressor on Coruscant. The Bounty Hunter was the aggressor in his feud with the Jedi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Exactly. The BH is no innocent victim. They're taking contracts from criminals. Even in the beginning, the BH is taking bounties from a hutt gangster. All in a bid to get somewhere in life. You might feel a little bad for them, except the ones the jedi killed likely hand a hand in the whole competition, and being hunters, likely didn't surrender either. Hunter may be an honorable warrior, but they're also in it for sport , taking targets purely for sport, and if Mando, part of their creed is go after those tough targets just because they're tough. Now, it's correct, the Mando's have a different sense of justice than our own. To them, even killing one of their own in a fair fight that their own started means "go for blood" but that just proves they're criminals. Reminds me a bit of taken "You killed my son! Who...was a sex slave trader...and murderer...and totally kidnapped your daughter and her friend and tried to kill you for getting her back...grrr...justice!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutGrndZero Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 It was an awkward way to put it perhaps, but the reason that the Champions are famous is specifically because they were the few winners of the galaxy's premier murder competition. Seros methods might be bad, but the Hunter is the one that made themselves his enemy by killing his friend. Except Tarnis was the aggressor on Coruscant. The Bounty Hunter was the aggressor in his feud with the Jedi. The Great Hunt is a bounty hunting competition, not a murder competition. With a few exception, you don't actually HAVE to kill anyone... In fact, for a proper bounty hunter that is not the goal. Bring the person in alive, do NOT kill them unless they leave you no other option. Not all Bounty Hunters are Boba Fett that need to be told "No disintegration" because they are a raving psychopath that is only a bounty hunter to be a legally sanctioned serial killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldVengeance Posted September 4, 2015 Author Share Posted September 4, 2015 (edited) The Great Hunt is a bounty hunting competition, not a murder competition. With a few exception, you don't actually HAVE to kill anyone... In fact, for a proper bounty hunter that is not the goal. Bring the person in alive, do NOT kill them unless they leave you no other option. Not all Bounty Hunters are Boba Fett that need to be told "No disintegration" because they are a raving psychopath that is only a bounty hunter to be a legally sanctioned serial killer. Admiral Iverness cannot be taken in alive. The Eidolon can only be kept alive because the Hutts want him to be tortured. "Tyresius" is only supposed to be taken in dead. The Durasteel Duke is already dead. Master Jarro cannot be taken in alive. The Great Hunt simply does not offer the Bounty Hunter non-lethal merciful options. Edited September 4, 2015 by OldVengeance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azareya Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) The funniest thing I can think of is when catching the smuggler on Belsavis, "let me at least stop them from freeing the DREAD MASTERS, you know those guys are puppy killers!" "light side: nope you're coming with me!" good ol' BH Edited September 6, 2015 by Azareya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutGrndZero Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) Admiral Iverness cannot be taken in alive. The Eidolon can only be kept alive because the Hutts want him to be tortured. "Tyresius" is only supposed to be taken in dead. The Durasteel Duke is already dead. Master Jarro cannot be taken in alive. The Great Hunt simply does not offer the Bounty Hunter non-lethal merciful options. None of the above violate the Bounty Hunter's Creed either (except maybe the Tyresius thing... that really made me go can I do this?) Yet, there are many times throughout where killing IS optional. Great job spoiling The Great Hunt outside of a spoiler tab by the way. The funniest thing I can think of is when catching the smuggler on Belsavis, "let me at least stop them from freeing the DREAD MASTERS, you know those guys are puppy killers!" "light side: nope you're coming with me!" good ol' BH After/before/during which you free the Dread Masters. (Assuming you aren't skipping planetary quests). Edited September 7, 2015 by AbsolutGrndZero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azareya Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) As a final note, because I'm arguing too much about the BH I had really hoped that in Kotfe they would abolish this factions for smugglers and BH and make them just defect or having them fully independent since both factions are gone, but no i'm guessing my BH in Kotfe will have a hand in restoring the Empire later on Ye can't wait to help what's left of the Sith and the imp scums, but i'm still totally independent really.. Edited September 7, 2015 by Azareya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachimthbear Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Great job spoiling The Great Hunt outside of a spoiler tab by the way. To be fair, this is the spoilers section of the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 To be fair, this is the spoilers section of the forum. To be fair, this game is now multiple years old and people should get over the spoilers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutGrndZero Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 To be fair, this game is now multiple years old and people should get over the spoilers The game is still actively having new players coming in. It's not the same as a 60 year old movie. "To be fair" have a modicum of respect for your fellow players. As to this being the spoilers section, that just means there is MORE spoilers here, but it doesn't mean it's still not polite to use spoiler tags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SithKoriandr Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The game is still actively having new players coming in. It's not the same as a 60 year old movie. "To be fair" have a modicum of respect for your fellow players. As to this being the spoilers section, that just means there is MORE spoilers here, but it doesn't mean it's still not polite to use spoiler tags. Multiple people haven't seen the movies, do you still use spoiler tags when talking about Vader being Luke's father and Leia is Luke's sister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts