Implications of the Alliance taking sides

[NeroTethras]

Don't read this if you haven't finished the Eternal throne story yet.

 

 

 

So considering 6.0 is going to be an Empire/Republic story line, how likely is it we'll see certain main characters turn on us? Theron ended up just being undercover this time, but does anyone think if you start taking sides in the upcoming Expac it'll result in more defections and traitors?

 

My concern here is mainly that it won't even factor in and characters like Theron and other Republic leaders will make no note of it for the sake empire players that would complain otherwise. I think it's understandable for a lot of the generic foot soldiers to just follow the commander/emperor blindly after what he/she has accomplished, but it'll bother me if characters like Aygo and Aric say nothing.

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by NeroTethras

[Goreshaga]

Don't read this if you haven't finished the Eternal throne story yet.

 

 

 

So considering 6.0 is going to be an Empire/Republic story line, how likely is it we'll see certain main characters turn on us? Theron ended up just being undercover this time, but does anyone think if you start taking sides in the upcoming Expac it'll result in more defections and traitors?

 

My concern here is mainly that it won't even factor in and characters like Theron and other Republic leaders will make no note of it for the sake empire players that would complain otherwise. I think it's understandable for a lot of the generic foot soldiers to just follow the commander/emperor blindly after what he/she has accomplished, but it'll bother me if characters like Aygo and Aric say nothing.

Honnestly, i hope that if you're a full DS kill every companion that disapoint your character, then the more LS companions that are not dead yet will just leave you where you stand and run away from you as fast as they can (well, chances are if your toon is like that, that most of them are already dead anyways).

That if you took the Trone as Emperor / Emperess and starts an actual reign of terror, then the likes of Jorgan, Theron or any other companions that are similar to that and are still alive will turn on you.

And that if the most DS orientated ones think you're too kind they'll leave you all the same.

[kodrac]

I'm tired of betrayal stories. Time for something different.

[IoNonSoEVero]

 

I think that it's possible that some companions could leave, not necessarily based on the commander's faction choice, but on their decisions.

 

I could see some companions warming up to an opposite faction commander. For instance I could see Aygo, Hylo and Aric Jorgan deciding to stay with an Empire-siding commander who has taken the peacekeeper role and made some other LS choices. I don't know if Rusk would do so, however. Theron seems disenchanted with the SIS And Republic but I don't know if he'd want to hang around with a very DS commander who wants to obliterate the Republic entirely.

 

On the other side, I wonder if turning Republic would drive away Mandalorian recruits like Shae Vizla and Torian. I think companions like Pierce might really object to being sided with the Republic. I can see Lana staying with a pragmatic Republic-sided commander, but not one who wants to blow all the Sith up.

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by IoNonSoEVero

[casirabit]

 

To be honest, I hope for once that the companions do leave if you have a character that is not someone they could trust or support. Too many times it is brushed off because some will complain they lost so and so but I for one would like my choices to matter. Why would Theron or any of the Republic characters follow my dark side sorceress if she actually took the throne as a dark side and ruler.

 

For my light side characters I really can't see Lana agreeing with them as they have argued a few times over the decisions that were made.

 

Of course all this is my opinion and something I would like instead of them just following someone that follows a complete different path than the one they are following

 

[SteveTheCynic]

To be honest, I hope for once that the companions do leave if you have a character that is not someone they could trust or support. Too many times it is brushed off because some will complain they lost so and so but I for one would like my choices to matter. Why would Theron or any of the Republic characters follow my dark side sorceress if she actually took the throne as a dark side and ruler.

 

For my light side characters I really can't see Lana agreeing with them as they have argued a few times over the decisions that were made.

 

Of course all this is my opinion and something I would like instead of them just following someone that follows a complete different path than the one they are following

"For once"? It has already happened. My Commando was royally reamed by Elara for letting the reactor blow AND pushing the button in Chapter X, after which dear Elara flounced off in a huff, never to be seen again.

[Paulsutherland]

What if we sided with one faction on Iokath then switched to another at the end of Nathema? I'm sure that'll be frowned upon by both sides.

[OldVengeance]

Characters like Lana and Theron are more loyal to the Alliance than their old factions. I imagine most of the already returned companions are the same. The only clear exceptions that I can think of would be M1-4X, Major Pierce and Elara Dorne. Maybe Rusk too. But I'm not sure how or if the game could account such convictions.

 

The Mandalorions are an independent faction, and so Shae and Torian also shouldn't turn on the Alliance if it allies with the Republic either.

 

It would be good if the game does something to recognize that at least a few your characters wouldn't be willing to fight their old homes, though.

Edited July 3, 2018 by OldVengeance

[Goreshaga]

While I could see Lana following a LS pacekeeper Commander as long as she thinks that said Commander still has a decent brain, I just can't see companions like Theron or Jorgan following blindly a full DS Emperor who acts as a tyrant and kills civilians just for not wanting them as their ruler, they both left the Republic because Saresh was acting like that, so why would they follow someone who's potentially far worse than her ? (well they're probably both dead for that kind of Commander anyways)

[Atalantia]

To be honest, I hope for once that the companions do leave if you have a character that is not someone they could trust or support. Too many times it is brushed off because some will complain they lost so and so but I for one would like my choices to matter. Why would Theron or any of the Republic characters follow my dark side sorceress if she actually took the throne as a dark side and ruler.

 

For my light side characters I really can't see Lana agreeing with them as they have argued a few times over the decisions that were made.

 

Of course all this is my opinion and something I would like instead of them just following someone that follows a complete different path than the one they are following

 

At one time during the closed beta they discussed having the companions leave, something like DA:O. We were told they decided against that as if you pissed of say Quinn then you wouldn't have a healer type class for a companion and the other thing they said was people would boo hoo too much

[OldVengeance]

While I could see Lana following a LS pacekeeper Commander as long as she thinks that said Commander still has a decent brain, I just can't see companions like Theron or Jorgan following blindly a full DS Emperor who acts as a tyrant and kills civilians just for not wanting them as their ruler, they both left the Republic because Saresh was acting like that, so why would they follow someone who's potentially far worse than her ? (well they're probably both dead for that kind of Commander anyways)

 

Oh yeah, I guess I forgot about Jorgan because my one Outlander who is a DS Emperor already killed him. Jorgan probably shouldn't follow a very DS Outlander. But Theron?

 

 

He seems to dislike doing darkside options, but based on his behavior, the only conclusion I am able to reach about him is that he doesn't mind them too much, as long as the Outlander can still accomplish whatever they set out to do. He is there for all the horrible things a DS Outlander does and never takes a stand against them like Koth does. Sometimes he is in the conversation where the Outlander gives brutal orders, and he just sadly goes along with it. And this recent traitor story he gives exactly the reasons that someone who has had enough of a DS Outlander would give for betraying them, and then that is revealed to be a lie. So obviously those things he said don't bother him enough to actually turn on the Outlander. It makes no sense that he would pretend to betray the Outlander and give a pretend reason, and then really betray him later on for that same reason.

 

 

The thing to remember about Saresh, is that she wasn't just corrupt and brutal, she was also incompetent. I suppose that is supposed to be the difference for Theron. I guess he shares Lana's brutal pragmatism, to a certain degree.

Edited July 4, 2018 by OldVengeance

[IoNonSoEVero]

Regarding the Mandalorians, there's a lot of very bloody and hostile history between them and the Jedi both in Legends and Canon that stretches all the way from the Old Republic to the Clone Wars (so 3000+ years). Shae Vizsla was part of the Sacking of Coruscant and has a personal hatred of Jedi which is explained in her backstory. Their codex entry mentions their affiliation (a loose alliance, but they have their own enclave on DK) with the Sith Empire and their love of hunting Jedi.

 

I do think therefore that they would not necessarily work directly for the Republic or that it would cause some considerable strain.

 

While I could see Lana following a LS pacekeeper Commander as long as she thinks that said Commander still has a decent brain, I just can't see companions like Theron or Jorgan following blindly a full DS Emperor who acts as a tyrant and kills civilians just for not wanting them as their ruler, they both left the Republic because Saresh was acting like that, so why would they follow someone who's potentially far worse than her ? (well they're probably both dead for that kind of Commander anyways)

 

IMHO that's one of the failings of KOTET. If your Outlander is a murderous oppressive tyrant, I don't think many of the Alliance people would have stayed on to begin with. I can't see most of them, including Lana, following a solidly tyrannical murderous leader. Lana does approve of some LS choices such as saving Theron, and she's pragmatic and repeatedly asks the Outlander to keep an open mind about allies. Similarly Theron is Republic but not solid LS; he greatly approves when you kill Saresh for instance. The undercover agent plot killed thousands of people, butTheron saw his actions as necessary to save the Alliance. Both he and Lana are pragmatic.

 

I also think that in reality half the Alliance would have walked out in protest on any commander that chose to bring in Arcann, but they didn't write it that way. I really can't imagine someone like Koth and his crew accepting that.

[OldVengeance]

Regarding the Mandalorians, there's a lot of very bloody and hostile history between them and the Jedi both in Legends and Canon that stretches all the way from the Old Republic to the Clone Wars (so 3000+ years). Shae Vizsla was part of the Sacking of Coruscant and has a personal hatred of Jedi which is explained in her backstory. Their codex entry mentions their affiliation (a loose alliance, but they have their own enclave on DK) with the Sith Empire and their love of hunting Jedi.

 

I do think therefore that they would not necessarily work directly for the Republic or that it would cause some considerable strain.

 

The Mandalorions have allied with the Empire and fought the Republic several times during history, but that doesn't mean they always have been or always will be. After KOTOR 2, they united under Mandalore the Preserver and were supposed to join forces with the Republic against the Sith Empire, but Bioware basically undid that all when TOR came out.

 

Lana mentions that the Mandalorions have fought the Empire in the past, and if a Republic Outlander suggests the Mandalorions fight the Empire instead, Shae Vizsla does seriously consider it.

 

It's not as if the reasons that Mandalorions tend to hunt Jedi, a love of battle and challenge, is something that doesn't apply to Sith as well.

[Goreshaga]

He seems to dislike doing darkside options, but based on his behavior, the only conclusion I am able to reach about him is that he doesn't mind them too much, as long as the Outlander can still accomplish whatever they set out to do. He is there for all the horrible things a DS Outlander does and never takes a stand against them like Koth does. Sometimes he is in the conversation where the Outlander gives brutal orders, and he just sadly goes along with it. And this recent traitor story he gives exactly the reasons that someone who has had enough of a DS Outlander would give for betraying them, and then that is revealed to be a lie. So obviously those things he said don't bother him enough to actually turn on the Outlander. It makes no sense that he would pretend to betray the Outlander and give a pretend reason, and then really betray him later on for that same reason.

This was actually really stupid, and seems OoT for him.

He was ready to never get to know his father properly in Annihilation because he was ok with the Ascendant Spear attaking Duro and the Republic doing nothing so that imps would not know they had the mean to follow that ship.

But he'd be perfectly ok with a DS Outlander being worse than that ?

Honnestly, as as fully DS Outalander was going to kill Theron anyways, they should've made him an actual traitor for a DS Commander and keep the fake traitor plot for the LS Commander.

[IoNonSoEVero]

The Mandalorions have allied with the Empire and fought the Republic several times during history, but that doesn't mean they always have been or always will be. After KOTOR 2, they united under Mandalore the Preserver and were supposed to join forces with the Republic against the Sith Empire, but Bioware basically undid that all when TOR came out.

 

Lana mentions that the Mandalorions have fought the Empire in the past, and if a Republic Outlander suggests the Mandalorions fight the Empire instead, Shae Vizsla does seriously consider it.

 

It's not as if the reasons that Mandalorions tend to hunt Jedi, a love of battle and challenge, is something that doesn't apply to Sith as well.

 

Bioware undid it because the rest of canon has the Mandalorians as bitter enemies of the Jedi and the Republic, for at least three millennia. It goes far deeper than sometimes allying with one side or the other.

 

There's an entire Mandalorian-Jedi War, which is named as such. The Jedi are responsible for destroying the planet of Mandalore. There's a group of Mandalorians, the Mandalorian Crusaders, that hunt Jedi specifically. Not Sith. The achievements of Mandalorians in killing Jedi are celebrated in artwork in Mandalorian areas. It's something that is sustained in the lore up through the Clone Wars, when the Mandalorians again harbor anti-Jedi sentiment. And for their part, the Republic stoops as low as to jail Mandalorian children (specifically Boba Fett, when he is a child). So yeah, they kinda always have clashed with the Jedi, in both legends and canon, from the pre-TOR era up through the film era.

 

Even if Shae seriously considers the Republic commander's suggestion for that second, her written history, in the SWTOR related books, is that she hates the Jedis' guts and eagerly participates in destroying Coruscant to avenge her brother. There's a very deep rift there.

 

One can blow that off and pretend the lore doesn't exist if one wants, but the Mandalorians are far stronger foes of the Jedi and Republic.

Edited July 4, 2018 by IoNonSoEVero

[OldVengeance]

Bioware undid it because the rest of canon has the Mandalorians as bitter enemies of the Jedi and the Republic, for at least three millennia. It goes far deeper than sometimes allying with one side or the other.

 

There's an entire Mandalorian-Jedi War, which is named as such. The Jedi are responsible for destroying the planet of Mandalore. There's a group of Mandalorians, the Mandalorian Crusaders, that hunt Jedi specifically. Not Sith. The achievements of Mandalorians in killing Jedi are celebrated in artwork in Mandalorian areas. It's something that is sustained in the lore up through the Clone Wars, when the Mandalorians again harbor anti-Jedi sentiment. And for their part, the Republic stoops as low as to jail Mandalorian children (specifically Boba Fett, when he is a child). So yeah, they kinda always have clashed with the Jedi, in both legends and canon, from the pre-TOR era up through the film era.

 

Even if Shae seriously considers the Republic commander's suggestion for that second, her written history, in the SWTOR related books, is that she hates the Jedis' guts and eagerly participates in destroying Coruscant to avenge her brother. There's a very deep rift there.

 

One can blow that off and pretend the lore doesn't exist if one wants, but the Mandalorians are far stronger foes of the Jedi and Republic.

 

OK, whatever happens in the future of the Star Wars galaxy, such as the time of the Clones Wars, is irrelevant. Only the Old Republic era matters. And it certainly isn't three millennia of conflict at this the time of Swtor. But even in the future, there have been times when Mandalorians allied with Jedi against the Sith, such as during the New Sith Wars.

 

The full history of the Mandalorian Crusaders as a group far predates their wars with the Jedi. In fact, they attacked the Sith before they ever attacked the Republic or the Jedi. Mandalorians' first major conflict with the Republic wasn't even their choice, it was because Mandalore lost a duel with Ulic Qel Droma. And more recently Mandalorians fought alongside the Jedi Exile again to defeat the Sith Triumvirate. There really isn't any reason why Bioware had to undo that aspect of Kotor 2, but they undid a lot of Kotor 2 regardless.

 

The Mandalorian Wars were three centuries ago, that's certainly enough time for new alliances or attitudes to develop. And even in TOR we see that there were some among the Mandalorians who refused to fight for the Empire because of Mandalore the Preserver's pledge to defend the Republic.

 

Shae doesn't seem to display any particular hatred towards Jedi or Republic characters in the game. Neither does Torian. If the game and the books ancillary to the game disagree, the books are wrong. And the fact that Imperial characters can say "The Mandalorians and the Empire were allies once; they can be again" in Mandalore''s Revenge suggests that the Mandalorians Clans are not officially affiliated with the Sith Empire any longer.

[Rafiknoll]

Mandalorians follow people out of respect and the best way to gain that respect is to beat them in combat. Shae was defeated in blood-hunt and it was really out of character (as far as Mandalorians go) to dismiss it and refuse to join you. They see the alliance commander as a war hero (conquering the eternal empire), just like they saw Revan as a war hero despite him being a war hero in a war against them, who annihilated them. Mandalore followed Revan because he respected him for defeating the Mandalorian army and the previous Mandalore. Shae Vizla will follow the alliance commander because he defeated her, can defeat her again anytime, and has won a war, even if she truly dislikes all his companions and his faction.

[OldVengeance]

Mandalorians follow people out of respect and the best way to gain that respect is to beat them in combat. Shae was defeated in blood-hunt and it was really out of character (as far as Mandalorians go) to dismiss it and refuse to join you. They see the alliance commander as a war hero (conquering the eternal empire), just like they saw Revan as a war hero despite him being a war hero in a war against them, who annihilated them. Mandalore followed Revan because he respected him for defeating the Mandalorian army and the previous Mandalore. Shae Vizla will follow the alliance commander because he defeated her, can defeat her again anytime, and has won a war, even if she truly dislikes all his companions and his faction.

 

Shae doesn't have to like you in order to follow you or respect your skills as a warrior. Yet she doesn't ever display any extra hostility towards Jedi than she does towards any other character, even before you defeat her on Rishi or join forces on Darvannis. If she's willing to call a Jedi Master, "brother" it doesn't seem like she hates Jedi that much. She's not the only one. Torian, actually approves if a Jedi Outlander says that the Jedi and Mandalorians have spent too much time fighting. Khomo Fett doesn't seem to hold Jedi in more contempt than any other outsiders, either.

 

In fact, a fairly consistent attitude among Mandalorians is that they generally don't take defeat in war personally. A history of conflict with the Republic is less likely to bother them than it is the Republic itself, especially given the Mandalorians' previous atrocities. But if the next expansion is about war between the Empire and Republic, then the Republic is not likely to refuse aid.

Edited July 4, 2018 by OldVengeance

[IoNonSoEVero]

Shae doesn't have to like you in order to follow you or respect your skills as a warrior. Yet she doesn't ever display any extra hostility towards Jedi than she does towards any other character, even before you defeat her on Rishi or join forces on Darvannis. If she's willing to call a Jedi Master, "brother" it doesn't seem like she hates Jedi that much. She's not the only one. Torian, actually approves if a Jedi Outlander says that the Jedi and Mandalorians have spent too much time fighting. Khomo Fett doesn't seem to hold Jedi in more contempt than any other outsiders, either.

 

In fact, a fairly consistent attitude among Mandalorians is that they generally don't take defeat in war personally. A history of conflict with the Republic is less likely to bother them than it is the Republic itself, especially given the Mandalorians' previous atrocities. But if the next expansion is about war between the Empire and Republic, then the Republic is not likely to refuse aid.

 

 

 

*throws hands in air* Dude, you're just ignoring every single bit of lore in both Legends and Canon about the Mandalorians and their alliances over millennia. I feel like it's pointless to argue it because you're not even listening.

 

The Mandos ally with any commander because they want revenge on Zakuul for slaughtering them and weakening the clans. As Lana says, though, after that conflict their focus will shift, and their history with the Jedi are not positive. Their culture is very much about honor, restoring lost honor and avenging wrongs done to them.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorian_Wars

 

The Mandalorian Wars was the term given to the sixteen years of conflict between the Mandalorian warrior culture and the Galactic Republic that began in 3976 BBY with the Battle of Althir.

 

"The Mandalorian Wars were a series of massacres that masked another war, a war of conversion. Culminating in a final atrocity that no Jedi could walk away from… save one."

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalore_the_Avenger

 

Republic Senator Keenig, was part of the Imperial force attacking the planet of Alderaan, and launched a strike on a Republic political envoy, during which Vizla's brother was killed by the Jedi Master Aurei Eadon, causing her to develop an intense hatred for the Jedi Order.[

Edited July 4, 2018 by IoNonSoEVero

[OldVengeance]

*throws hands in air* Dude, you're just ignoring every single bit of lore in both Legends and Canon about the Mandalorians and their alliances over millennia. I feel like it's pointless to argue it because you're not even listening.

 

The Mandos ally with any commander because they want revenge on Zakuul for slaughtering them and weakening the clans. As Lana says, though, after that conflict their focus will shift, and their history with the Jedi are not positive. Their culture is very much about honor, restoring lost honor and avenging wrongs done to them.

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalorian_Wars

 

 

 

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalore_the_Avenger

 

You're the one who's ignoring lore that contradicts your preconceptions. I've already cited examples from previous games and examples from this one where Mandalorians are willing to fight alongside Jedi, even at a time much closer to the Mandalorian Wars. More importantly you are ignoring what is clearly presented in the game. Mandalore The Avenger is never presented in the game as having an immutable grudge against the Jedi which would prevent her from ever working with the Republic. Neither is Torian, or Akaavi or any of the other major Mandalorian characters left in the game.

 

More importantly perhaps, Shae Visla is a companion that was a subscription reward. They aren't going to automatically remove her from characters that made a specific choice in the story.

Edited July 4, 2018 by OldVengeance

[Magnusheart]

Whats stupid was the ending of Iokath on who you chose. Huge decisions like that ruin the game for Roleplayers on who is in charge.

[Kataret]

 

There are basically three categories of companions that we have and we can assume the impact they have based on their placement.

 

1. Optional Companions. These are basically all the "Alliance Alert" companions, which unfortunately now includes a selection of romanceable companions as well. Since these companions are completely optional as to when/if they join the player's alliance at all, they don't feature in the main story whatsoever and thus won't react to any of our choices. So while it would make sense for companions like Pierce, M1-4X, Rusk, Talos Drellik, and others to take issue with the player allying with a certain faction, we won't get to see any ramifications in the story because they were always optional recruits.

 

2. One-off Companions. These characters were the ones that did have significant roles during KOTFE and KOTET but have since become mostly irrelevant in the post-xpac stories. For the most part this category consists of the killable companions, like Koth, Senya, Vette, Kaliyo and others, as well as the companions that featured only for a little bit before getting cast aside, like Temple and Gault. These companions are not entirely out of the story, as we did see Arcann get some new romance scenes as well as a brief convo in the Nathema Flashpoint, but again, if they show up at all, their appearance is brief. That said, it doesn't seem likely that we'll see reactions from these type of companions, even though we should. Jorgan and Aygo should have taken huge issue with characters allying with the Empire on Iokath, and should do so again with the Nathema choice. But they likely won't simply because they haven't been huge characters in the story for a long time.

 

3. Main Characters. This is basically the category of companions that have been really untouchable. Since so many companions have been offered a kill option, this sect only really contains Lana and T7 (Hylo Visz too as she's had considerable screentime lately). I might even argue that Theron is still in this category as well. I know he had a kill option, but he just seems like such a huge character (See Theron love thread) so I think he'll still have a role for those who left him alive. These are the companions that will still react to player decisions, but because Theron, Lana, and T7 have been with the player character so long, I feel they are more loyal to the Alliance that the other factions. Theron and Lana even confirm this at the end of Nathema, where they say something like "We're here to stay" or so. So I don't think the faction choice will affect them either.

 

All things considered, it looks like the faction choice will only have an impact on future characters and story, as opposed to affecting the ones we already have. This is how the Iokath choice was handled as well, with Dorne/Quinn refusing to join you and Malcom/Acina dying based on your choice, without any ramifications to the companions that you had recruited prior to that choice.

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2018 by Kataret

[Dracofish]

I'm pretty sure BioWare has stated that your faction choice itself will have no bearing on retaining or losing companions. I think they also went on to say that no past decision will sway it either...and that only specific "severe" decisions coming up will.

[xordevoreaux]

I'm tired of betrayal stories. Time for something different.

 

Totally agree. It's time for Disney to put its foot down regarding use of its intellectual property and develop a profound inter-connectedness with its other IP franchises, starting by putting more muppets in SWTOR, after all, the Muppets did do a Star Wars ditty. I'm thinking maybe Animal should be the next Emperor, and Miss Piggy should be in an expansion as a love-lorn Sith Gamorrean whose heart pines away for her Jedi Ginx former boyfriend. Players must choose to defend the hapless Ginx against her crafty advances, or rally behind Miss Piggy until the Ginx is totally subjugated by her love.

 

Yes. It's a thing. We're doing it.