My issue with Shadow of Revan as a Dark Side Sith (Potential Spoilers)

[Katahn]

Originally Posted by Servant One

 

Since the Treaty of Coruscant, the Emperor has withdrawn from the known galaxy, preparing for a great calling.

 

Baras learned of this and now claims the Emperor speaks through him.

 

This could have been anything. It only specifies that the Emperor was off preparing his next plot. Going from that to "and it is to devour the Galaxy" is a big leap.

 

Originally Posted by Sel-Makor

 

No closer. Desist. Death embodied. Death itself.

[/Quote]

 

Again, vague and could mean anything. Sel-Makor is death to us, the Emperor and/or the Wrath are death to Sel-Makor. Sure, in retrospect this could be understand as confirmation, but on its own it is just too cryptic.

 

Originally Posted by The Voice of the Emperor

 

These petty conflicts mean nothing. The concerns of this galaxy are meaningless.

 

Once I ascend, all will be tranquil in this galaxy. It is my promise to you. Now strike.

[/Quote]

 

Vague statements that the Emperor considers himself above the affairs of mere mortals... As far as ascending that could mean "because everyone will live in peace worshipping me" - it speaks to megolomania, not "I'm gonna eat everything". It is certainly forshadowing, but that is far from being a giveaway.

 

Originally Posted by Servant One

 

The Emperor's return approaches. Prepare for his ascendance, Wrath.

[/Quote]

 

Ascendance doesn't automatically mean "and then eat everything in the Galaxy"

 

Originally Posted by Darth Vowrawn

 

Consider this: the last Wrath of the Emperor served in that position for centuries, only departing after turning traitor.

[/Quote]

 

Which could mean anything.

 

Originally Posted by Revan

 

Can't you see you're on the wrong side? The Emperor is death -- for you, for me, for the galaxy.

[/Quote]

 

Typical mad jedi ravings about the Sith.

 

Look I understand the writers hinted at the Emperor's true plot, but the hints were all very cryptic and without knowing the Jedi Knight story not particularly obvious. In retrospect once the Emperor's plot is uncovered these things can be looked back on as cryptic hints and enjoyed as such. Plus even if we the player knew the truth it really should have been given a bit more story and development.

 

I kind of expected you to allude to the story Baras tells the young warrior how the Emperor "devoured" his closest lords and underlings to achieve immortality. But even that is still a far cry from "enacting a massive ritual to destroy all life in the Galaxy". This itself should have been a MUCH bigger reveal, especially for the Wrath given his story and connection to the Emperor.

[Darth_Wicked]

* snip *

 

Read what I said earlier:

There's plenty of references here and there, pertaining what the Emperor is and what he represents to the galaxy, stretching from the original class story to the one on Rishi -- vision or no vision.

 

Instead of trying to put it all together, as if a puzzle, you prefer to discard it. From all those quotes, properly assembled and contextualized, it is possible to conclude the following:

 

 

• The Emperor removed himself from the Empire's affairs, following the ToC, presumably to prepare for a "great calling".

• Baras caught wind of said "calling", in addition to what it entailed, and had the Voice of the Emperor trapped on the Nightmare Lands, in Voss. This also made it possible for Baras to almost proclaim himself as the Voice of the Emperor.

• Though the exact details are unknown, both Sel-Makor and Revan claim the Emperor is "death", the former stating it is "death embodied", while the latter affirms it spells doom to everyone in the galaxy.

• It is fairly likely the Emperor's "Ascendance", as stated both by him and Servant One, is what Sel-Makor, Baras and Revan feared; hence their actions.

• The last Wrath of the Emperor, who served him presumably for centuries, left his service just around the time he was deemed a traitor. THE SAME TIME PERIOD Baras had the Voice trapped on Voss and Sel-Makor saw it as "death" -- same way Revan saw the Emperor.

 

^^ Again, this is ALL THERE.

 

If you need an explanation such as the one seen in SoR, where people are referred as "FOOD", then I guess one can't exactly blame them for going for what they did.

 

Look I understand the writers hinted at the Emperor's true plot, but the hints were all very cryptic and without knowing the Jedi Knight story not particularly obvious. In retrospect once the Emperor's plot is uncovered these things can be looked back on as cryptic hints and enjoyed as such. Plus even if we the player knew the truth it really should have been given a bit more story and developmen

 

They weren't cryptic at all.

 

They just required to be put together, in addition to contextualized properly, nothing more. If more than one character identifies the Emperor as being "death itself", it is NOT exactly a coincidence, but more so a pattern that may have some truth to it.

 

I kind of expected you to allude to the story Baras tells the young warrior how the Emperor "devoured" his closest lords and underlings to achieve immortality. But even that is still a far cry from "enacting a massive ritual to destroy all life in the Galaxy". This itself should have been a MUCH bigger reveal, especially for the Wrath given his story and connection to the Emperor.

 

Then you truly expected what SoR ended up doing really: spoon feeding. I don't recall Baras ever sharing that story with the Warrior either.

 

Also:

But even that is still a far cry from "enacting a massive ritual to destroy all life in the Galaxy".

The details, as stated earlier, are NOT the immediate concern, but rather the FINAL result. Again:

There's plenty of references here and there, pertaining what the Emperor is and what he represents to the galaxy, stretching from the original class story to the one on Rishi -- vision or no vision.

- - - -

- - - -

Edited February 11, 2015 by Darth_Wicked

[thatPERSON]

the way i looked at it is sith are in it for themselves. if they see a potential benefit in an action they take they will do that.

 

if you look at it like this you will understand that the Wrath was clearly only in it for him/herself, it protected him/her from certain death. sure he/she may have let them walk away but in doing so he/she was guaranteed a longer life span and the opportunity to continue building power which, in the end, benefits the Wrath. they did it strictly out of selfish reasons, they didnt take unnecessary risks. Even sith are capable of rational thinking.

[Leaveshill]

the way i looked at it is sith are in it for themselves. if they see a potential benefit in an action they take they will do that.

 

if you look at it like this you will understand that the Wrath was clearly only in it for him/herself, it protected him/her from certain death. sure he/she may have let them walk away but in doing so he/she was guaranteed a longer life span and the opportunity to continue building power which, in the end, benefits the Wrath. they did it strictly out of selfish reasons, they didnt take unnecessary risks. Even sith are capable of rational thinking.

 

Many Sith, like Marr for instance, is very wise. Your lack of Sith understanding is admirable. Some Sith are insane, sure. But the Sith has rules. Codes, a deep philosophy. It's a reason it's demanded that Xalek is killed in the SI storyline. It's a reason Baras at first considered to kill the Sith Warrior due to his lack of understanding of the Sith, and that he gave him a hard mission that would likely kill him. It's a reason Darth Thanaton wants the Sith Inquisitor dead. A reason he blocked Zash and "Imprisoned" her at Dromund Kaas. Want to know what? Tradition, rules. Lord Scourge is still Sith Have you played the JK?. He's much, much more intelligent than let's say, Satele Shan. He sees things from different views. The Jedi do not. In some ways, we can say that the Sith has much, much more clearity than the Jedi. I mean. Look at Satele Shan. Or the Jedi Knight, even. "The Sith might become even more dangerous now that the Emperor is dead!"

 

Ye because most Sith wants to destroy the galaxy. Yet the Jedi think so. To me it seems like the Jedi are the most zealous and most religious, clearly lacking understanding of anything but their own self-righteous matters. Look at let's say, Nox, then compared him to the JK. Nox understands much, much more. "In contradiction to what they Jedi teach, the world is not just white and black. It has many shades, and many contradicitons."

A bit deeper than your Jedi knight I'd say. From their POW it's white, black, then possibly at best grey

Just saying, your idea that Sith "even capable" of thinking makes me laugh a bit. Jedi aren't any better. They're both religious orders, and the "New Empire"(From after Malgus' death) is ruled by a much, MUCH less zealous person than the Jedi Order. Satele Shan is filled with Jedi-prejuice. Hence why she becomes so angry if you tell Marr to torture the prisoner. "I won't forget this, Marr!" Yeah, imagine torturing someone to save the galaxy? This zealous Jedi cannot handle such actions because of their lack of understanding. Clearly they don't see the big picture. The Grand Master of the Jedi order will rather have all people die than to torture someone for valuable information which might save everyone. Such stubborness is a nothing but damaging.

So, it's clear to all (or at least most) that the Sith is ruled by a more intelligent and more rational leader than Jedi.

 

And of course, a number of Sith are also insane, zealous etc. But it's still a fact that the Republic is ruled by a much more corrupt leader than the Empire(The criminal twi'lek), while Satele Shan is a hypocrite(having a child while being against it) and a zealous Jedi with less understanding than Marr. Much, much less. So you should "clean your own backyard" and probably start to look at things from a neutral perspective once in a while. Might enlighten you on certain subjects.

[Raphael_diSanto]

If you need an explanation such as the one seen in SoR, where people are referred as "FOOD", then I guess one can't exactly blame them for going for what they did.

 

Which is probably why they did it, DW.

[Ghisallo]

This could have been anything. It only specifies that the Emperor was off preparing his next plot. Going from that to "and it is to devour the Galaxy" is a big leap.

 

Yes when you cherry pick quotes you are correct. However Darth Marr knows and says the Emperor wants to eat the Galaxy. The Scourge, who you replaced, betrayed the Emperor for Revan, then stopped so he could betray the Emperor for the Jedi Knight (this opening the door for you) because he knows it.

 

Sorry but you are simply wrong. Maybe you are genuInely wrong. Maybe you are intentionally ignoring the quotes that contradict you to try and justify your character being a suicidal psychopath. Not sure tbh.

 

Also to what Leaves said. Sith need rules MORE that the Jedi do. They need obedience MORE than the Jedi do. They need to see things more broadly that Jedi do. They serve the dark side. In serving the dark side that means serving their Passions. My neighbor has something I really really want? Take it. My neighbor tries to stop me? Kill em. Just to keep the back stabbing, betrayals and Machiavellian political machinations to a minimum they NEED a strict hierarchy, stricter rules and harsh discipline for violating the above. Without that you wouldn't have any sort of Sith organizations. You would just have independent warlords trying to carve out their own little piece of space who are so busy fighting each other that the Jedi and the Republic would steam roll em.

 

As for Shan it is a stretch to call her a hypocrite. It is more like, in her mind, someone who learned their lesson. She had a kid and when forced to chose between child and the Order she chose the Order. Now she does not want other people to make the same mistake she did. You can sorta see a hint of this awkwardness on light side when she and Theron are face to face. She is clearly troubled.

 

Learning from one's mistakes does not make you a hypocrite. Would you call the ex gang member who wants to prevent other kids from joining gangs and speaks against gangs a hypocrite or someone who is strong enough to overcome their mistakes and is now trying to help?

 

As for Saresh....welcome to a republican democracy. **** happens. However I see two choices

 

1...killing hundreds of people after a single separatist terrorist attack (thinking Balmoral), supporting anti-human discrimination (since she is non-human) [thinking the "interesting" comments that got thrown my Chiss Operative's way], a Government that is a true police State lead by people who are lead by the dark side and in some cases being literally consumed by it .

 

2. A Corrupt High Chancellor who if they do not serve the Republic well in office can be removed by popular vote...

 

I would likely chose the later. Now my favorite character is my Light Side Chiss Operative. That said if I had to chos what side of the border to be on, if anyone would actually say Empire.... <shudder>

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Nydus]

To the OP.

 

The concept I had of my character when I started this game is not the character I ended up with. I would say that in primarily a good way the writing and story have sent my concept of the character in different directions. I'm trying to tell you, you can have whatever concept of a character you want to start out with but there is a story they are telling and you'll have to adjust the character.

 

If you don't want to do that, then I suggest you start writing fan fiction because that is the only way you can have whatever you want .

 

- Arcada

[Ghisallo]

2. A Corrupt High Chancellor who if they do not serve the Republic well in office can be removed by popular vote...

 

I would likely chose the later. Now my favorite character is my Light Side Chiss Operative. That said if I had to chos what side of the border to be on, if anyone would actually say Empire.... <shudder>

 

And tbh I don't see anything that says she is corrupt. Is the a self righteous, arrogant Politico who thinks she knows better than everyone else most of the time? Yep. That however does not = corrupt.

[Leaveshill]

 

 

I have a tendency to see a lot of the Sith Warriors as sort of insane. It comes with them being Dark V, torturing Vette until she stops asking for convos and of course, the ones that still wish to serve the Emperor. *shrug*

 

And indeed, it's required to have "more insight" while using the Dark side, if not then madness follows. Like Thanaton said, "Without order and tradition, we would be so covered in our own blood that we'd not see our enemies taking aim." or something like that. The Sith aren't a mindless murder and mayhem organisation, had they been then it'd never been a war at all. But some are way too lax with their rules, and the Dark Council should likely put down harder on powerplays. Like on Zash after Skotia etc.

 

Over to Satele. Maybe I did bash her a bit too hard. I probably did it to prove my point, but that's not fair. I guess that making a mistake and then recoving from it shouldn't make one a hypocrite. But I'd still say that she's rather shortsighted, at least. Like the episode where she becomes so angry at Marr for torturing the damn lunatic. And listen to how she describes the Voss? I mean... She's filled with old Jedi prejuice. As are most of the Jedi Council. Look at how they react to Lord Scourge the first time they meet. Ignore that he risked his life and all to save the Hero of Tython. Or that he's warning them about a plot that'll destroy them all, and all other life. "He's sith, let's kill him!"

 

And while you're sort of right on the second. She is corrupt. Or isn't she? She did have a hand in the episode where she tries to drag the earlier "superior" down, for once. She does try to force workers into death at Taris, so that her project can be successful. The price is the blood of her "voters", but who cares? THey'll die, so they can't vote against her.

She also has some doubtful morals, as showed in the Tropper storyline as well. Calling someone that forces people to death(like on Taris), while "fighting for democracy" can be called corrupt. Or maybe I'm abusing the term, but I find corrupt a decent word for it. She's supposed to "represent hope" and all that, yet she's no better than Marr. Quite the opposite. At least he's a man of principle, something she's not.

 

Of course, the Republic is a more "pleasent" place. Especially for aliens. Personally I wouldn't mind living in the Empire, I hate the "corrupt-democracy" system too much. Zealous sith aside, I prefer the politics of the Empire. At least things gets done there. And the corrupt leader won't be replaced, she has used the war to get in charge, and this war will likely continue for a long time so I have no doubts that they'll continue.

 

Also, about Balmorra. Yes, crimes happend and all that. yet the resistance are nothing but terrorists. They even have criminals in their ranks, murderers and the like. And what about the IA story line? They show clearly that the Jedi are intending to well. Ruing Dromund Kaas if the Empire refuse to surrender, with their new superweapon. Not that no Imps would do the same. Just to point out that warcrimes sort of happen both ways, and murders aren't restricted to either side.

 

Personally I'd prefer Malgus' Empire over both, but I wasn't given a choice in that matter. I don't think I'd have too many complains to be living in the Empire. As long as my parent's weren't "Born low", at least.

 

And I hope you're not judging me severly for being Pro-Empire. Haha.

 

Edited February 14, 2015 by Leaveshill

[Shatterstar]

My mara is one of those "Dark V psycho-types", as so many here have stated it. He has killed an pillaged across the universe. But, committing evil and atrocities does not need make you an idiot also.

I did it in support of the Empire, not the Emperor. I was doing it before being named the Wrath, that title just means I get more latitude when I find enemies within the Empire. The moment Darth Marr explained to me that the Emperor wanted to snuff out all life, including mine, I lost any loyalty I had to the Emperor. Because one: I like living, and two: he will undo all my hard work, d**n it. And while I would rather slay Jedi than work with them, I will let them live for now. Besides, we'll need cannon fodder against the Emperor!

[Ghisallo]

I have a tendency to see a lot of the Sith Warriors as sort of insane. It comes with them being Dark V, torturing Vette until she stops asking for convos and of course, the ones that still wish to serve the Emperor. *shrug*

 

You can be a sociopath though. While it can go to the extreme of insanity, insanity by definition does NOT mean psychotically homicidal to the point of performing suicidal actions. This is my point. Look at the Sociopathic serial killers. HUGE body counts BUT they keep control when needed because they understand how the world works and don't want to go to jail and get the electric chair.

 

As are most of the Jedi Council. Look at how they react to Lord Scourge the first time they meet. Ignore that he risked his life and all to save the Hero of Tython. Or that he's warning them about a plot that'll destroy them all, and all other life. "He's sith, let's kill him!"

 

He is the emperor's body guard and enforcer. If someone who was guilty of killing hundreds of CIA agents over the last 300 years walked into Langley what do you think the reaction would be?

 

And while you're sort of right on the second. She is corrupt. Or isn't she? She did have a hand in the episode where she tries to drag the earlier "superior" down, for once. She does try to force workers into death at Taris, so that her project can be successful. The price is the blood of her "voters", but who cares? THey'll die, so they can't vote against her.

She also has some doubtful morals, as showed in the Tropper storyline as well. Calling someone that forces people to death(like on Taris), while "fighting for democracy" can be called corrupt. Or maybe I'm abusing the term, but I find corrupt a decent word for it. She's supposed to "represent hope" and all that, yet she's no better than Marr. Quite the opposite. At least he's a man of principle, something she's not.

 

Being corrupt, in terms of politics, means one who illegally abuses their authority, breaks laws, takes bribes etc. Being ruthless in terms of dealing with subordinates, undermining political rivals, these are not corrupt acts. We can argue they are immoral or that they are not in the Spirit of what the Republic stands for. Examples of being corrupt would be if she gave her predecessor's itinerary to an Imperial Agent so the Bounty Hunter could get them, or having the foreman shot in her office or imprisoned, as an example to others, for daring to question her order

 

If anything she simply shows the realities of a democracy...that there will be people who get involved to "fight the good fight" AND to increase their own power and influence. Very few politicians are

 

Also, about Balmorra. Yes, crimes happend and all that. yet the resistance are nothing but terrorists. They even have criminals in their ranks, murderers and the like. And what about the IA story line? They show clearly that the Jedi are intending to well. Ruing Dromund Kaas if the Empire refuse to surrender, with their new superweapon. Not that no Imps would do the same. Just to point out that warcrimes sort of happen both ways, and murders aren't restricted to either side.

 

one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. What should be noted is that these people didn't exist until the Empire started bringing down the heavy hand. A patrol gets ambushed and rather than "hearts and minds" the Governor lines up civilians against the wall and has em shot...creating more "terrorists".

[Leaveshill]

.

 

 

It's highely unlikely that the Sith Warrior would get away with, let's say, murdering FimRess and his guardians. Their Master, on the Dark council, would punish this act. Seems like rather insane bloodlust with no terms of intelligence, wits, understanding or even point. And it'd likely make him pay with his blood. Just saying, a proof of sucidal behaviour. I don't call Dark Sith warriors insane, but all that got Dark V by doing the darkest option in every case, well. Another story.

 

Also ; Insane can mean a number of thing. Calling the Dark V Sith Warrior insane is perfectly correct. It has a number of uses which is acceptable. 4 is correct, as could one argue that 1a would be as well. Just saying, it's not wrong to call the Dark V warrior insane. THe JK, Nox, IA, everyone else has "less" horrible options. The SW has, purely and simply, too many insane options. Sadistic optioins, mindless violence etc. If the SW was D 4 at least, then turned Dark V later, then fine. But getting Dark V in the first two chapters means that the Warrior in question is a lunatic.

1.

a. Of, exhibiting, or afflicted with mental derangement. Not used in psychiatric diagnosis.

b. Characteristic of or associated with persons who are mentally deranged: an insane laugh; insane babbling.

c. Intended for use by such persons: an insane asylum.

2. Having been determined to be in a condition that meets the legal definition of insanity.

3. Immoderate; wild: insane jealousy.

4. Very foolish; absurd: took insane risks behind the wheel.

 

On Scourge; He has also just saved one of the Order's heroes. He has explained something they'd never know without him, nor could know, and he has tried to save everyone. Yet they're blinded. And they're supposed to be calm. "There is no knowledge, there is knowledge."

It seemed like jedi knights, and especially not the masters of the Council. Also, they don't know that he has been the enforcer for 300 years.

GUESS WHAT, they just learned about the Empire like, 50 years ago. It's likely that they have no idea about what Scourge has done, where he has been, who he has killed. And guess what, it has been a war. People kill each other in war. They acted like children, and they're supposed to be the calmest. Don't defend it by using a RL example as we're clearly not religious jedi, and CIA don't have codes regarding emotions. Admit that the Jedi acted like childish brutes in that aspect , don't try to defend them. It's like defending the Emperor. They're not supposed to act like that when an opened hand is given, offering to save trillions. It was childish. How often don't they lecture people on grudges and ignorance?

Also, I doubt that the CIA would put a gun to a person's head, when he comes with their "top operative"; that he just risked his life to save, and with the entire strategy of the evil enemy. They could not behave, and it's no excuse. I'm pretty certain a former Taliban-terrorist would've been better recieved at CIA than Scourge was under those circumstances, even though the Jedi are supposed to be "higher" than that.

 

And maybe she's not corrupt according to political standards. That does however say a lot of about standards of politcians. She's certainy amoral, and Marr's moral are much higher. Of course the leader isn't the only thing in a government, but I'm pretty sure that you agree on that. Also; forcing the workers to continue, even when it means death, isn't abusing her position? I'd wager that the Republic has laws for abusing workers, especially when it leads to high casualities.

 

And no, you can't argue that the balmorra murderers are freedom fighters. Some of them are, yes. The entire resistance isn't murderers, nor terrorrists. What about the Agent storyline? Chemish Or, or something like that. With her lovely bombs in the centre of Sobrik and all that. It's terrorism by definition. Or how she intends to find out which natives are working with the Empire, to murder them. You cannot call it "Freedomfighters" because you have sympathy for their cause. The ones at the weapon factory, that's freedom fighters. A lot of the resistance is, however, murderers and terrorists.

The resistance has a number of terrorist cells, or murderers, and a number of freedom fighters. It's still a lot of criminals in their ranks, and protecting the criminals because some of their "partners" are good guys doesn't make the murderers and terrorist anything but that.

 

[Ghisallo]

It's highely unlikely that the Sith Warrior would get away with, let's say, murdering FimRess and his guardians. Their Master, on the Dark council, would punish this act. Seems like rather insane bloodlust with no terms of intelligence, wits, understanding or even point. And it'd likely make him pay with his blood. Just saying, a proof of sucidal behaviour. I don't call Dark Sith warriors insane, but all that got Dark V by doing the darkest option in every case, well. Another story.

 

Also ; Insane can mean a number of thing. Calling the Dark V Sith Warrior insane is perfectly correct. It has a number of uses which is acceptable. 4 is correct, as could one argue that 1a would be as well. Just saying, it's not wrong to call the Dark V warrior insane. THe JK, Nox, IA, everyone else has "less" horrible options. The SW has, purely and simply, too many insane options. Sadistic optioins, mindless violence etc. If the SW was D 4 at least, then turned Dark V later, then fine. But getting Dark V in the first two chapters means that the Warrior in question is a lunatic.

1.

a. Of, exhibiting, or afflicted with mental derangement. Not used in psychiatric diagnosis.

b. Characteristic of or associated with persons who are mentally deranged: an insane laugh; insane babbling.

c. Intended for use by such persons: an insane asylum.

2. Having been determined to be in a condition that meets the legal definition of insanity.

3. Immoderate; wild: insane jealousy.

4. Very foolish; absurd: took insane risks behind the wheel.

 

On Scourge; He has also just saved one of the Order's heroes. He has explained something they'd never know without him, nor could know, and he has tried to save everyone. Yet they're blinded. And they're supposed to be calm. "There is no knowledge, there is knowledge."

It seemed like jedi knights, and especially not the masters of the Council. Also, they don't know that he has been the enforcer for 300 years.

GUESS WHAT, they just learned about the Empire like, 50 years ago. It's likely that they have no idea about what Scourge has done, where he has been, who he has killed. And guess what, it has been a war. People kill each other in war. They acted like children, and they're supposed to be the calmest. Don't defend it by using a RL example as we're clearly not religious jedi, and CIA don't have codes regarding emotions. Admit that the Jedi acted like childish brutes in that aspect , don't try to defend them. It's like defending the Emperor. They're not supposed to act like that when an opened hand is given, offering to save trillions. It was childish. How often don't they lecture people on grudges and ignorance?

Also, I doubt that the CIA would put a gun to a person's head, when he comes with their "top operative"; that he just risked his life to save, and with the entire strategy of the evil enemy. They could not behave, and it's no excuse. I'm pretty certain a former Taliban-terrorist would've been better recieved at CIA than Scourge was under those circumstances, even though the Jedi are supposed to be "higher" than that.

 

And maybe she's not corrupt according to political standards. That does however say a lot of about standards of politcians. She's certainy amoral, and Marr's moral are much higher. Of course the leader isn't the only thing in a government, but I'm pretty sure that you agree on that. Also; forcing the workers to continue, even when it means death, isn't abusing her position? I'd wager that the Republic has laws for abusing workers, especially when it leads to high casualities.

 

And no, you can't argue that the balmorra murderers are freedom fighters. Some of them are, yes. The entire resistance isn't murderers, nor terrorrists. What about the Agent storyline? Chemish Or, or something like that. With her lovely bombs in the centre of Sobrik and all that. It's terrorism by definition. Or how she intends to find out which natives are working with the Empire, to murder them. You cannot call it "Freedomfighters" because you have sympathy for their cause. The ones at the weapon factory, that's freedom fighters. A lot of the resistance is, however, murderers and terrorists.

The resistance has a number of terrorist cells, or murderers, and a number of freedom fighters. It's still a lot of criminals in their ranks, and protecting the criminals because some of their "partners" are good guys doesn't make the murderers and terrorist anything but that.

 

Maybe I get the thing with Scourge having been involved a LEO for 18 years now. For three years my job was to deal with Confidential Informants and the like. Yeah... no... 99% of the time they are still dirty as hell, they are either looking to use you to get at someone, using you to get out of trouble, or believe it or not using you to find out your trade craft so they can go back to business and not get caught by the same methods. We would actually think LONG and hard if we would use our electronics on a CI because we didn't want a potential "permanent" bad guy to know how we rigged up our cameras and such.

 

So you are maybe applying a "I have read this story 100 times, he is legit wth?" I am applying "I have dealt with turn coats professionally and the smallest minority are to be trusted and even then only so far" metric.

 

As for insanity there are indeed many definitions. My point is to say that Bioware is not going to code a "you were a ******* so got yourself killed" option to illustrate the degree of insanity DS V may grant. Marr is DEFINITELY DS V. But doesn't illustrate the level and type of insanity some people wish here.

 

As for Marr v Saresh and morality. That depends... Do you think Saresh would allow a death match between Senators (al la the Sith story lines?) Do you think she would endorse an Agent having mind control programs forced into his brain because they did the right thing BUT the right thing was against a Senator and well... even if the Senator is a traitor the Agent is just a peon?

 

Sorry but Marr is FAR from Moral or ethical by any definition. He is a pragmatist pure and simple. Which still makes him about 100 times better than 85% of the Sith btw... not putting the guy down by any means...I dig him.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Leaveshill]

Maybe I get the thing with Scourge having been involved a LEO for 18 years now. For three years my job was to deal with Confidential Informants and the like. Yeah... no... 99% of the time they are still dirty as hell, they are either looking to use you to get at someone, using you to get out of trouble, or believe it or not using you to find out your trade craft so they can go back to business and not get caught by the same methods. We would actually think LONG and hard if we would use our electronics on a CI because we didn't want a potential "permanent" bad guy to know how we rigged up our cameras and such.

 

So you are maybe applying a "I have read this story 100 times, he is legit wth?" I am applying "I have dealt with turn coats professionally and the smallest minority are to be trusted and even then only so far" metric.

 

As for insanity there are indeed many definitions. My point is to say that Bioware is not going to code a "you were a ******* so got yourself killed" option to illustrate the degree of insanity DS V may grant. Marr is DEFINITELY DS V. But doesn't illustrate the level and type of insanity some people wish here.

 

As for Marr v Saresh and morality. That depends... Do you think Saresh would allow a death match between Senators (al la the Sith story lines?) Do you think she would endorse an Agent having mind control programs forced into his brain because they did the right thing BUT the right thing was against a Senator and well... even if the Senator is a traitor the Agent is just a peon?

 

Sorry but Marr is FAR from Moral or ethical by any definition. He is a pragmatist pure and simple. Which still makes him about 100 times better than 85% of the Sith btw... not putting the guy down by any means...I dig him.

 

Maybe, but it's still a difference between not trusting someone completely, which is normal, and to put a gun (lightsaber in this case) to the person's head. That's a sure way to make the "traitor" turn against you as well. "Oh I thought it was more pleasent people here, but I guess not!

I don't doubt that most people who "turn" are still dirty, but this is actually in a war with two "superstates", and when an important person want to turn, why not well, pretend to believe him while keeping tabs? Rushing to attack him is certainly not a good idea. And the Jedi are, like we all know, supposed to be calm. Hence it's acceptable to critize this behaviour, especially when we think about what Scourge risked to get there, and how he did save the Hero of Tython.

And yes, of course I already know that he's legit, so it makes me "less neutral", but I'm not stating that they should blindly trust him. I'm just saying that reaching for your weapon in a peaceful conversation is well, a bit over the hill. Especially when Scourge is trying to explain the danger ahead.

 

And I guess the "insanity" depends on what use a person normally has for it. I might be a bit "cheap" on the insane-use. And of course, Bioware wouldn't make it so that you can kill yourself. The closest thing if the Agent if he/she refuses to kneel for Jadus, which is close to a deathwish. Normally they won't make such actions available, especially not for the "Big, scary guys", as they'll likely be annoyed if they get stomped on, even if they're allowed to live on. Would of course be fun if they died and had to go back into the story-area and restart the conversation, haha.

 

And the deathmatches aren't really immoral. In warrior societies, trials by combat are normal. Baras vs Wrath, how can they determine who's right? Not that combat can do that either, but they do not know what to do. If they kill Wrath, maybe the Emperor had walked in the following day and scared the sh*t out of everyone. Or maybe they'd kill Baras and, ops, it was the real voice. Hence why they let the two fight instead.

On to Thanaton. Thanaton had himself challenged Nox to a duel(Kaggath), and lost, while trying to make the Dark Council take action to help him. The Council was suprised with how he'd failed to kill "a child, an apprentice", and allowed Nox the chance to fight the Council member in front of them. I think that's much more honorable than to say "Sure, my friend, let's go 10 v 1 on this little apprentice!", which from my POW would've been a bit well. More brutal, and certainly less honorable.

The mind-control matter was cruel, but it wasn't Marr's decision. It was the decision of the Council, and Marr can't control the Council in every matter. He must compromise with his allies etc, and that doesn't make him a bad guy. Of course, it was a very treachours act, and I was personally shocked after I risked my life to save all those people and my reward was the brainwashing chip.

 

And maybe Marr is Dark V, but if "Marr had played the game"; then he'd end up somewhere along the middle I'd bet. One of the earlier Darks, and certainly not Dark V. But sure, he's fully commited to the dark side. Which is what the Light/dark system should be, if you ask me. Which Sith would ever accept bribes? A lot of them do in game for Dark points, but I really doubt that any Sith would say "Oh, I'll sell my soul for credits, because yeah I totally care about money." That does of course ruin the system, because I can't really see a Dark V as anything but a lunatic due to the game mechanics. If the person in question just rushed through most dark options to look dark for his endgame-rp, then that's another thing, but the things one must do to get Dark V is pretty brutal. Personally I just do the first FP + diplomacy after I*m done with the game if I wish for a Dark look, lol.

 

And maybe he's not, but Saresh certainly aren't any better. And she doesn't "stand" for what she believes, Marr does actually come out as an honorable man. Saresh has no problem forcing people to death and manipulating behind the scenes while pretending to be a good girl. Marr never said "I'm the kindest guy in the Galaxy!", he's a warlord and he never tried to manipulate someone away from his "real" self. I'd prefer a straight up warlord that cares about his Empre to a sneaky, half-corrupt politician with possible criminal ties and hidden motives any day. We don't really know anything about what Saresh wants, only that she hates the Empire and that she has no problem betraying "all that her democracy stands for."

[Ghisallo]

Maybe, but it's still a difference between not trusting someone completely, which is normal, and to put a gun (lightsaber in this case) to the person's head. That's a sure way to make the "traitor" turn against you as well. "Oh I thought it was more pleasent people here, but I guess not!

 

You are missing the context though...this is not merely an "agent", crack head, dealer etc. This is the Emperor's personal assassin who has killed hundreds if not thousands of Jedi over his 300 years. TBH I found it NAIVE as all hell and unrealistic that he is just allowed to run off with me and not basically get locked up on Tython until the legitimacy of his claim was verified ESPECIALLY since I am sure Revan, when he was debriefed, told them of what happened the last time the Scourge said he want to help jedi. Remember that.

 

And the deathmatches aren't really immoral. In warrior societies, trials by combat are normal. Baras vs Wrath, how can they determine who's right? Not that combat can do that either, but they do not know what to do. If they kill Wrath, maybe the Emperor had walked in the following day and scared the sh*t out of everyone. Or maybe they'd kill Baras and, ops, it was the real voice. Hence why they let the two fight instead.

On to Thanaton. Thanaton had himself challenged Nox to a duel(Kaggath), and lost, while trying to make the Dark Council take action to help him. The Council was suprised with how he'd failed to kill "a child, an apprentice", and allowed Nox the chance to fight the Council member in front of them. I think that's much more honorable than to say "Sure, my friend, let's go 10 v 1 on this little apprentice!", which from my POW would've been a bit well. More brutal, and certainly less honorable.

 

Sorry but Deathmatches are immoral (from any logical perspective) as they were in most warrior societies. It is not a matter of who is "right" but who is the better fighter or who is stronger. Simply because your society is based on an immoral code does not make it moral. That would be like saying what Himmler did under Hitler's orders was not immoral because in Aryan society MH/MR and "lesser" races would dilute the pure Aryan blood. There have been societies throughout history that believed that enslaving or outright killing other ethnic groups was necessary for the purity of the nation/tribe so if we extend your support of such subjective morality in a logically consistent fashion....

 

The mind-control matter was cruel, but it wasn't Marr's decision. It was the decision of the Council, and Marr can't control the Council in every matter. He must compromise with his allies etc, and that doesn't make him a bad guy. Of course, it was a very treachours act, and I was personally shocked after I risked my life to save all those people and my reward was the brainwashing chip.

 

if you think Marr wasn't in agreement you don't know Marr. Marr is yes about a more structured and organized empire but he is STILL all about the Sith being the top dogs and there is no room for a force blind person like the Agent to show such independence, even if the reasons for it were correct. Marr would think "okay I agree with what the agent did here BUT I can not allow it to set a precedent he must be punished and controlled so that other people don't say "'well its for the right reason.' " At best Marr would have voted in favor of it from a purely pragmatic view, not the anger I am sure other Council members felt.

 

And maybe he's not, but Saresh certainly aren't any better. And she doesn't "stand" for what she believes, Marr does actually come out as an honorable man. Saresh has no problem forcing people to death and manipulating behind the scenes while pretending to be a good girl. Marr never said "I'm the kindest guy in the Galaxy!", he's a warlord and he never tried to manipulate someone away from his "real" self. I'd prefer a straight up warlord that cares about his Empre to a sneaky, half-corrupt politician with possible criminal ties and hidden motives any day. We don't really know anything about what Saresh wants, only that she hates the Empire and that she has no problem betraying "all that her democracy stands for."

 

See with Saresh I think you are applying a double standard. She is imo the flipside of Marr's coin. The Sith are seen largely as these purely evil homicidal lunatics. Marr is pragmatic and breaks that mold. The Republic and it's leaders (when you look at characters like Leia, her adoptive father etc) and this by extension the Republic are supposed to be these paragons of virture.

 

Saresh breaks that mold by being equally pragmatic in her actions to protect the republic. People say "omg she is a warmonger!!!" Well I know it isn't popular after the election for "Hope and change" in the US but if a warmonger is invading your country, your allies country, killing your citizens, and makes it clear that they have no interest in stopping until the claim all that is in their field of vision, the only way to stop them is to meet force with force. People who prefer the Empire over the Republic use this reality and twist it into something that it isn't. At WORST we can say that Saresh got to where she is and is who she is because of the Empire. Think to our political history when people have asked the question, in times of war, "are they a good war time president." That is what Saresh is.

 

Though I am curious to know what is this "betrayed all democracy stands for kinda thing." care to elaborate on the acts?

 

If I have a problem with anyone tbh it's Satele Shan. Saresh is the head of the elected government. The Jedi are supposed to serve the Republic. Doing what she did, then basically slapping Saresh on the nose with a news paper when Saresh points out the truth actually pissed me off. In that exchange Satele actually proved the stuff Sidious was telling Anakin to be true.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Ghisallo

[Leaveshill]

.

 

 

Yes, this is the Emperor's enforcer. Yet, the Jedi know little about him. You know because you've played it, but they don't. Here we face the same situation when you explained how I "know that he's legit", and it's the same situation here, with you "having knowledge about how many jedi he has slain."

Not saying that he hasn't killed a number of Jedi, but they are not aware of what he has done. He's more silent than that, they have no way to know.

Also, I don't think that Revan would talk about Scourge. Scourge wasn't the Wrath then, he wasn't made to "live forever" then, and Revan might even think that Scourge is dead.

 

On to the deathmatches and morality. Morality is not universal. Maybe you find that taking a life is always a horrible act, that life is sacred etc. If two people, both "powerful", where one wants you to murder the other and the other wants to fight out the duel, why not allow it? This is a religious society, like the Jedi. Trials by combat aren't moral if one of the combatants are, let's say, a farmer. But if it's two warriors, I see no problem there.

In our "moral" society, we let murderers and rapists get a second chance. At least in Europe, most countries punish rapists with 1-5 years and murderers with 10-30.

This is not any more "moral" than allowing deathmatches. Maybe from your POW. But it's horrible if you look at it from a neutral persective.

Deathmatches aren't "a good thing"; but it's not as horrible as it sounds. Life isn't sacred.

And your nazi example is OK, but it's not really valid either. Because moral isn't universal. Had they won the war, then we'd say "The strong races live on, the weak die", and been fine with that from our "universial moral". Morals are, as said, rarely universial. This is not an expaction. Also, there's much better cases. People in Saudi Arabia getting beheaded for "witchcraft", or the mass-exectutions in Iraq from ISIS are more valid examples at they're happening now, and it's about "law-enforcements and morals", not "racial hygiene".

I agree that trials by combat aren't a "great" thing. It's not. But "our" modern society is just as immoral. Allowing the filth of society to violate the innocent are, if anything, worse than letting two warriors fight to the death. So no, your POW isn't "logical", not any more than the flawed morals our politicians have in this aspect. It's 100% correct that it's immoral according to our modern morals, but our modern morals are so damaging and can therefore not be used as a great example.

 

I never said that Marr DIDN'T agree, I said that it's not his idea. We don't know what happened there, and yes, as I said, " He must compromise with his allies etc". Which means that yes, I don't think that he said no. I just said that I guess he agreed to keep his allies pleased.

 

Over to the Sith. From the movies, which are more black and white, all sith aren't shown to be evil. Darth Tyranus was, a good man. He wanted to best for the galaxy. Not "evil and homicidal". And Maul, well. We don't know him well, so we can't judge him. Anakin was, of course, insane during his spell, and that can be labelled as evil. Palpatine as well, that makes 2/3 evil, even though he's not the "pure evil". And Palpatine aren't a homicidal maniac, that's Vader. So 1/3 homicidal. Most Sith aren't known to be homicidal maniacs. Sure, if you play the Jedi Knight storyline, with the Emperor and of course little Angral, who for the record just saw his son die, then yes, they're homicidial. Mortis also breaks the mold, even being against the war. Thanaton did, when he was an apprentice and helped Master Hulis save colonists. We don't know if Ravage, Vowravn or any of the other's "break the mold"; but we kno for a fact that at least 3 of the DC members before Nox's rise "Break the mold". Likely more, but we don't know this and we can't judge. Sure, Baras is "purely evil", but how many of the other members of the council are purely evil? So that argument about "purely evil" are not right according to the movies, not to SWTOR and probably not to most of EU either.

 

Also, the Republic did, after all, break the threaty first. (Balmorra), trying to fully invade Balmorra. So don't try to call the others warmongers. Also, it's mostly the Emperor and the Star Cabal that's behind the war, which you should know as your main is an agent. The cabal even "proves" how evil the Empire is by murdering a ton of civilians, people the Empire had no intention of killing. Which of course isn't known to the republic, but yeah. Still, the Republic broke the threaty first. They tried to settle in Taris, which is Imperial space and against the threaty as well(I think?); while preparing a full scale invasion. The Republic are, therefore, the breakers of the threaty. Then you can't call the other party "warmongers", if your side attacked first.

 

Saresh - do force her own workers to death on Taris, even when they beg to go home? Isn't this "Betraying the democracy", according to one as moral as yourself? You despise deathmatches and all, I can't see how you can think that forcing workers to die for no reason but your own personal gain, which is far worse than a trial by combat, can be acceptable.

Also, wasn't she behind trashing Janarus as well? I mean to have read something about her being "suspected" of being behind such a campaign, but that might be inncorrect.

 

And I don't see why Satele Shan shouldn't control the Republic instead of the Senate, in truth. The senate is easily manipulated, as shown in the movies and in RL politics. Democracy doesn't work in war, fact. Democies are slowpaced and far from effective, also a fact. Having "dictators", like the Jedi, which are supposed to be living for the greater good, would be the ideal governmen. They'd make fast calls, the right calls, and they'd make the calls for the people. Modern politicians don't rule for the people. Just look at USA and how it's becoming an oligarchy, faster and faster, even under Obama.

Yet with the Jedi council leading, you would never have such problems. That's one of the Jedi's problems. They refuse to stand up. The Republic would be a much better place had the wise ruled the blind, the pure led the corrupt. Instead it's the politicians, which in truth are people with big mouths, ruling. So I don't see why you'd dislike Satele for not following the rules of the senate 100%. It's clear that the Jedi know much, much more about governing than the Senate does, and even if they don't, it's a fact that unlike the Senate, the Jedi are supposed to be and trying to be selfless. Politicians are rarely "great people" in real life, and likely so in fiction as well.

 

[Zaibos]

It's a valid arguement you have, mabye they could've added in a random *** dude thatyou snatched as they escaped when you tried to kill everyone. But for lore reason it won't happen, especially since most of these people here are already killed by someone else on a different time that mess the lore up. And now that Darth Vitiate is back and doing his galaxy wide ritual you'll get to kill him for sure if the next xpac is on the timeline. Which it should be since this is the current time for Darth Vitiate to be a super****** and ultimate destruction,

[Ghisallo]

/snip

 

When it comes to morality I think you are missing my point. Look at this game like a novel. When you read a novel about white hats and black hats (not a more complicated tale), it is intended that the reader apply the morality of their society. It's not about giving a class on moral relativism. So if you are speaking as your character when you try to justify Sith society cool. If however you as the player are trying to justify it as a moral society I think we may be best served if we stopped that point of discussion.

 

As for Balmorra...before the Republic started supporting the revolution on Balmorra the Empire is supporting the "Separatists" on Ord Mantell, the Justicars on Coruscant, messing around on Taris etc. Now the following is me talking as the former History/Polit-Sci student talking. The Republic got it's clock cleaned thus they signed the Treaty of Coruscant. The public, as evidenced by the protests that came of their first Balmorran involvement, does not want a war. That said with all the stuff the Empire is doing the Republic has to respond at some point. The only difference between the two is that the Republic didn't have me (a joke referring to my Imperial Agent) to catch the "retired" General alive and make a bargain with him so he gives a statement over the Holonet. If they did the Empire would have been exposed on Ord Mantell. I mean how many times do you see Pub side (level wise) before Imp side Balmorra, the "oh that general/Sith lord/whatever went rogue, we deny any and all involvement..."?

 

Listen the Republic isn't full of angels...General Garza being the best example I can think of... but there is a difference between the two. The Republics issues are the issues you have in any democratic society, you get bad apples. The Empire however is really the flipside of that coin. Instead of a few "bad apples" in a good barrel the Empire is a bad apple with a few good apples.

 

Saresh was not working her people to death by the way. In that I mean making them work so hard they are falling from exhaustion. If you do all the Pub side stuff you see the issue is that she isn't realizing they are scared to DEATH of the rakghouls and they feel their security is lacking because they don't have a 100% iron clad assurance of securith. She is saying to the workers, in essence, "put your big boy pants on." Is it harsh? Maybe completely impolitic and domineering? Yep. Immoral? No. The workers signed a contract and she is holding them to it. While rakghouls are of course Sci-Fi, her reaction is little different than what you see in terms of labor negotiations in mining, the building of big projects like the Hoover Dam (which resulted in over 100 deaths) etc.

 

Your bit about Satele I think says A LOT. Yes an elected gov't can be manipulated by fear, polls, by corruption. However the greatest Tyranny's in history have been born of this very excuse going back to Julius Caesar. One of the interesting things about the prequel movies was a watching the Jedi Council confront the point they SERVE the Republic and how this often means having to allow things that trouble them to occur. It seems the basis of your issue with the Republic is that it is a Democracy period. Well at least I hope this is you talking from your character's stand point.

 

I also find your comments regarding Satele to also be contradictory. You have painted certain actions of Jedi as war crimes. Talk about how you don't understand, and see as completely wrong, their attitude towards the Scourge...even in light of the fact he has betrayed those moving against the Emperor before, forget about his body count. Yet now it's all good that one in essence ignores the chain of command, likely violates Republic Law and in the end slaps down the Head of State when they are called out on it? That confuses me and smacks of moral relativism. It is okay to be immoral or unethical, to break laws, when you agree with the reasoning or result. When you disagree with the reasons or results suddenly the questionable nature of the action is important.

[Leaveshill]

 

As for Balmorra...before the Republic started supporting the revolution on Balmorra the Empire is supporting the "Separatists" on Ord Mantell, the Justicars on Coruscant, messing around on Taris etc. Now the following is me talking as the former History/Polit-Sci student talking. The Republic got it's clock cleaned thus they signed the Treaty of Coruscant. The public, as evidenced by the protests that came of their first Balmorran involvement, does not want a war. That said with all the stuff the Empire is doing the Republic has to respond at some point. The only difference between the two is that the Republic didn't have me (a joke referring to my Imperial Agent) to catch the "retired" General alive and make a bargain with him so he gives a statement over the Holonet. If they did the Empire would have been exposed on Ord Mantell. I mean how many times do you see Pub side (level wise) before Imp side Balmorra, the "oh that general/Sith lord/whatever went rogue, we deny any and all involvement..."?

 

Listen the Republic isn't full of angels...General Garza being the best example I can think of... but there is a difference between the two. The Republics issues are the issues you have in any democratic society, you get bad apples. The Empire however is really the flipside of that coin. Instead of a few "bad apples" in a good barrel the Empire is a bad apple with a few good apples.

 

Saresh was not working her people to death by the way. In that I mean making them work so hard they are falling from exhaustion. If you do all the Pub side stuff you see the issue is that she isn't realizing they are scared to DEATH of the rakghouls and they feel their security is lacking because they don't have a 100% iron clad assurance of securith. She is saying to the workers, in essence, "put your big boy pants on." Is it harsh? Maybe completely impolitic and domineering? Yep. Immoral? No. The workers signed a contract and she is holding them to it. While rakghouls are of course Sci-Fi, her reaction is little different than what you see in terms of labor negotiations in mining, the building of big projects like the Hoover Dam (which resulted in over 100 deaths) etc.

 

Your bit about Satele I think says A LOT. Yes an elected gov't can be manipulated by fear, polls, by corruption. However the greatest Tyranny's in history have been born of this very excuse going back to Julius Caesar. One of the interesting things about the prequel movies was a watching the Jedi Council confront the point they SERVE the Republic and how this often means having to allow things that trouble them to occur. It seems the basis of your issue with the Republic is that it is a Democracy period. Well at least I hope this is you talking from your character's stand point.

 

I also find your comments regarding Satele to also be contradictory. You have painted certain actions of Jedi as war crimes. Talk about how you don't understand, and see as completely wrong, their attitude towards the Scourge...even in light of the fact he has betrayed those moving against the Emperor before, forget about his body count. Yet now it's all good that one in essence ignores the chain of command, likely violates Republic Law and in the end slaps down the Head of State when they are called out on it? That confuses me and smacks of moral relativism. It is okay to be immoral or unethical, to break laws, when you agree with the reasoning or result. When you disagree with the reasons or results suddenly the questionable nature of the action is important.

 

I guess your black-hats -white hats made more sense than I realized. I'm too used to analyze things my way, but that was a good point. That part of the discussion is dead now.

 

And I don't think the the REpublic did support it after? I'm pretty sure that both the Empire and the Republic has being doing some "illegal" actions. Also, Taris isn't really a moral place for the Republic to set up either. It's shown in the Sith Warrior storyline that they actually went there for their new "superweapon", and in fact Taris was just a tactical planet for the Republic, where other civlians were tricked into believing that they wanted to rebuild taris for "other purposes" than to prepare for war. Or at least that's how I always saw it.

Again, both sides did a lot of things contradicting the Threaty, but the Republic cannot be said to be "the defensive, poor guy that's defending against a warmonger" when they're preparing for and breaking the threaty themselves.

 

And indeed, but even I said that the Republic is the "good guys"; I just said that it's a number of good people in the Empire as well (/your IA being one of them), and a number of bad people in the Republic. This includes bad Jedi and good Sith as well.

 

And forcing people to work with "flesh eating monsters" aren't really moral. They have low security and I*m pretty sure someone got eaten. If not, maybe I'm judging Saresh too severily.

 

And on to the "democracy". I don't hate democracies, I just think that a "perfect" government would be something like, the Jedi Council. As they live to serve "the common good", which the politcians don't. Of course, that doesn't mean that I like dictarorships. But I'm pretty sure that a model like the Jedi Council, where the Jedi(Who's supposed to not only be the good guys, but also wise and neutral) rule, should prove effective and good for the majority.

And I still say that Jedi can commit warcrimes. From my POW, murdering young girls in their chambers, unarmed, should be considered warcrimes. I can understand the "hatred" for Scourge, but it doesn't make it any less stupid during such circumstances. They don't have time, and they're not even supposed to hate. Nor should they "draw their weapons" like that in a peaceful conversation.

And I don't think the Jedi would care that he does a few "crimes". If their Jedi can murder women in their bedrooms, then sure, what can Scourge do that's so much "worse", so to speak.

[MarcheseAMM]

My Wrath would have attempted to defeat Satele full stop...if I could have succeeded is a different matter...I bested Malgus but he lost to Shan so it would have been a good duel.

Not really, at least in the perspective of a Star Wars debater. Malgus alone is superior to Shan or the Wrath. Shan notes in her journal that she only won with the aid of Jace Malcom, and she would have probably lost otherwise. His distraction allowed her to defend herself via Tutaminis, absorbing the energies of Malgus' lightsaber and unleashing it back at him via a Force Blast. Then if you read the Deceived novel you would have known Malgus grew far more powerful since that fight. Only with the full might of four guys (with either Tython and Barsen'thor or Wrath and Nox) could they take Malgus down. And even then, Malgus during the cutscene forced them into submission with Force Lightning and used Telekinesis to blast them away. Then we got Revan who the Wrath is also inferior too.

Edited February 17, 2015 by MarcheseAMM

[Ghisallo]

And I still say that Jedi can commit warcrimes. From my POW, murdering young girls in their chambers, unarmed, should be considered warcrimes. I can understand the "hatred" for Scourge, but it doesn't make it any less stupid during such circumstances. They don't have time, and they're not even supposed to hate. Nor should they "draw their weapons" like that in a peaceful conversation.

And I don't think the Jedi would care that he does a few "crimes". If their Jedi can murder women in their bedrooms, then sure, what can Scourge do that's so much "worse", so to speak.

 

I'm going to just address this one (13 hour shift...this now bed time). What they did with her is no different than the raid on Bin Laden's compound by the SEALS. I think you may be hung up on the point she was a "girl". Doesn't matter, she was at least the equivalent of a Col if not a lower ranked General as far as her actions and her noble rank in Alderan society are concerned. As such if there is a raid on her Castle (read headquarters) then there is a good chance she ends up dead. Real warfare, real battle, doesn't care about the sex of the opponent, it only cares about threat. You don't go all out against men only to suddenly say " well even though that officer orchestrates death and destruction she is a chick so I should cut her some slack."

 

As for the Scourge bit...not saying it is not against the " ideal" of a Jedi. But from watching every Jedi in Cannon, with the exceptions of Obi Wan and Yoda, they all fell short at some point didn't they? Why? Because Jedi are mortal beings who make mistakes. The Sith on the other hand see the Jedi livin g up to the ideals as "weak.". That should be telling.

[Leaveshill]

.

 

13 hours shifts are harsh. Hope you get some good sleep then!

Well, maybe I am. But we don't know about her rank, they never told us directly and all she does is giving Nox intel, really. Behing the scenes. And she's not a soldier, so anyways let's agree on the fact that it's at least a questionable act and a bit immoral. Murdering people in their bedrooms, defenseless, is considered murder. Plain and simple. If it's a tactical murder, then that doesn't change it. I'm not saying that it's WRONG to murder someone "for the greater good", which this is from your (or the Jedi's POW). From her POW, it's just a cruel murder. It's not cruel or evil, but it's still murder. Even if not a crime, then it's a murder. That's what we call killing defenseless people, no matter gender. The gender just makes it feel a bit more harsh.

*Also; I wouldn't compare her to Bin Laden, really. He's a terrorist and a murder, behind countless innocent lives. This is a, at worst enemy commander with no "crimes" on her hands, and she's not a soldier (Bin Laden is, or was, a soldier), and they probably did not attack "for Elana Thul", they attacked for "retaliation", and they just happened to murder the people they found to be "questionable" during the attack. Of course, this never happend during my playthrough and all, but it's still part of the game as what the Jedi intended. We can discuss this all day, but I have a feeling that we're a bit "on edge" on the subject and that this is something we'll likely not agree on. Even though I might agree that calling it a warcrime is a bit "over the hill", so to speak. Murder, yes. Warcrime, no.

[Ghisallo]

Thanks...this is my long week so I get to work 5 base 12 hour shifts + whatever mandatory OT is in the offing. Which this week looks to be around 5-6 hours.

 

I think you are missing the influence of a noble society. She is a "Lady" of a noble house. If you are a Lady, Knight, Baron etc. you hold rank over the "commoners." Then you look at the acts she does during your interaction. Its clear she is soldily within the chain of command of House Thul. The precise rank really isn't important. When you attack the command post it doesn't matter if it is a Capt., Col. or General that gets in the way, they are a valid target. It's not murder. There is a difference between what I do now as a cop and what I did as a soldier. As a soldier when you are clearing a headquarters in combat you know the eligible targets. You do not enter rooms, even the barracks like , see eligible targets and say "drop your weapons get on the ground." unless the mission is specifically to get prisoners for intel purposes. Hell sometimes you " clear" the room with a frag grenade. If someone is standing there with their hands up maybe you don't shoot em, depends on whether the 5 guys around em are doing the same. If they are shooting chances are hands up get dropped too.

 

Even not taking account warfare i think you are making a BIG leap saying she was defenseless when the crap hit the fan. I don't recall anything that indicated she was cut down while surrounding or something. My point with the Bin Laden comment was the rules of war are the rules of war. Bin Laden or a "regular" military leader, the same rules apply. They are harsh and brutal rules. People die, get shot and killed before they can raise a weapon, get cut down because the people around them are fighting. It's not murder, its war.

[Leaveshill]

.

 

My pleasure! And that just makes it worse, of course. At least it's only 3 more days until the weekend!

 

And of course, war is brutal. It justs seems a bit more brutal to kill a woman in her dress than to kill a soldier, if if the soldier is unarmed as well. But I guess you, as a former soldier, would know much more about that than I would. So my favorite example of Jedi warcrimes is a false, huh. Tough one to swallow. I'll have to look for more jedi crimes in the future to replace this then. Still doesn't mean that I don't think Jedi can commit horrible acts and stay Jedi/light, but this case was obviously not as correct as I thought at first.

[Ghisallo]

Tbh I think what happens in war is one of the reasons the Jedi Council was against jumping in on the Mandalorian war. The Jedi do indeed have high ideals. However when you face a war on the scale of the Mandalorian war, or one against the Sith, you have to go all in. In the heat of battle there simply is no opportunity to offer someone the chance to surrender and, regrettably, if you have one person dropping their gun while their comrades keep shooting, that guy is probably getting shot.

 

I also think this is one of the reasons Lucas had the Confederacy use droids. How would it have looked on screen, the Jedi rolling in cutting down soldier after soldier vs droid after droid? There has always been a disconnect between the Jedi code...the force is for defense, never to attack...and what war requires.

 

As for woman vs soldier...don't say that to my college buddies little sister...she is in the IDF. First time I met her in the early 2000's was when she was standing on a street corner with another soldier holding a Galil (Israel's assault rifle at the time). Lol

Edited February 18, 2015 by Ghisallo