Jediphile

I don't see Jolee as a council member, at least not early on in K3. He's just a tad too grey for that, and it would take some serious convincing to make him join the council. I'm far more likely to think he's back in selcusion somewhere... Juhani might be a better candidate, but for some reason I always think of her as one of the jedi who died on Katarr when Nihilus attacked. Maybe that's because it's otherwise only characters that know very little or nothing about that died on Katarr, and I think someone should be lost there, that we care about. Then again, Vandar died there... (if Revan is LS in K1) I also don't think you should put Mical and Brinna on DS. If the Exile is DS, then one of them will be, but the other one never joined the Exile, and they were both LS to begin with. To me that means that at least one of them will always be LS, and both will if the Exile is LS. And why would there be a Sith empire on Korriban? Those would not be the "true Sith", and the rest of the sith are scattered and defeated after the fall of the Sith Lords in K2.

Well, the only "Revan robes" you ever to have in the game are created by the Star Forge in the DS ending. So that's what I was referring to. Revan donned similar robes well before ever finding the Star Forge, but those are never named.

Not a lasting one anyway. But if K3 takes place a few years after K2, there could be an emerging "council" on Coruscant. If the Exile is LS, those could be his companions.

Never got above level 43 or so myself... Then again I didn't try to. After all, once you reach about level 35, what's the point? By then you really should have all the force powers you want, and the enemies scale as well, which just makes the game tougher the further you go.

sorry, but you remember that bit wrong - HK was never created on the Star Forge, but before Revan found the Rakatan system. Remember how you get to ask him about it after finding out you're Revan in K1, and he responds that he doesn't know, because you never took him there. Revan's robes were created by the Star Forge, though. Well, the Death Star is also *mobile* - it can actually move through hyperspace. That makes it pretty lethal in any case... unless some stupid pilot gets a lucky shot in there, but really - what are the chances? "

The Star Forge can also create organic creatures (with Force Abbilities!) out of thin air! Remember Deck2? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I can see it now... "Instant dark jedification setting Add: 1 useless lackey 1 red lightsaber 1 appropriately evil-looking dark robe a hint of dark side power stir, then wait for a minute and collect your dark jedi at the output slot" I would have paid real money for that, but then I guess it's KotOR and not Monkey Island :D

Well, we know he didn't kill Bastila or Carth, because they do appear in the game (depending on Revan's alignment/gender as per the end of K1). Bastila seems to appear in any version of the game, and Carth is absent only for the DS male Revan, IIRC. Not sure how far T3 might have gone, though. Sure makes me wonder about all those corpses aboard the Ebon Hawk in the prologue... :ph34r:

yah absolutely...I prefer lightside for either game but an occasional darkside game is pretty fun too Especially since my fave character Mandalore/Canderous gives compliments for that. Also the HK 47 comments are hilarious! -jim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sure, but you can built influence with them (or at least HK - doesn't seem to be much point for Mandalore...) even if you're light side. Harder, but still a good challenge. I did it myself and got the "jedi kill" tricks from HK in the end... I also gave him LS mastery :D

Maybe she didn't go with him...but did she come back with the Hawk...? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When and how exactly Kreia got aboard the Ebon Hawk is one of those questions of the events leading up to K2 that I'm really curious about. Another is why the Exile was returning to the republic in the first. I know Atris staged his return by rerouting the Harbinger to pick him up, but he was not taken as a prisoner. What was his motivation for going back? Anyway, we do know that Kreia did not follow Revan to the unknown regions. How? Because she says this line toward the end of the game (where I trust she is speaking the truth for once). Kreia: "If he had asked... would I have gone? I do not know."

no, it isn't. think about it: there was no predecessor to K1. Ever see a Star Wars real-time cRPG before it? I'd think, if i were LA, that if i was going to publish that game, that it would have to be teh super sveetness before it was released, else it would be a total failure (money, effort, idea). So we wait a while after K1 and everyone wants a sequel... NOW! so there is obviously more of a rush. nobody really knew what to expect with K1, heck, i didn't pick it up until a full year after it was released. because of that, with K2 there were great expectations, and a compressed time limit; there were fans whining uncontrollably. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Agreed. And lest we forget - Bioware cut an entire planet from K1 as well...

Think 'realistic', the Star Forge 'had' enough power, and a connection to the Force to create lot of things..I think if Revan would had the blueprints of the Death Star, also an armada of them <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be that as it may, a fleet of republic ships more than thousand years older than the Death Star was still able to destroy the Star Forge. So that's where my vote goes - the Death Star would just blow the Star Forge away, while Vader smugly comments to Malak that he shouldn't be "too proud of this technological terror..."

The T3 vs. HK scene made lots of sense to me, but it require that you pay close attention to some points earlier in the game. Everybody knows that the Ebon Hawk's navicomputer is locked, but many seem to think that Kreia locked it, simply because she implies early on that she has the means to reprogram it. In fact, it was T3 who locked the computer, which you pretty much learn, if you build influence enough with him to get the Bastila (or Carth) hologram. In the LS Revan version, Carth actually confirms this when you finally meet him later, since he says that wherever Revan is now, the Hawk has been there. But it's clear that Kreia never went with Revan to the unknown regions.

The basis for most (if not all) RPGs is that you can try to do anything you can think of. This is even more relevant in a game like D&D, where there is magic and other supernatural phenomena. In that case it's more of a problem than a solution that you have to relearn or rather unlearn the laws of physics of real life before you can enter the "reality" of the game itself. That does not enhance the experience. What's wrong with actually letting the player decide what he wants to do with all those "presumed" attacks? You could make the same argument for 2e, of course, except that 2e, 1e and OD&D all stay very close to the core of the original edition of the game going back all the way to the early 70s, and so they all contain some of those concepts. 3e does not, however, since it's a complete rewrite - not a revision - of the core itself. That being the case, why does the game still hang onto antequated concepts that have long since been abandoned by far better RPG systems? No, that's a premise I don't agree with. If anything, it's much easier to hit with a dagger, where you mere have to jump forward stabbing your weapon - it's very difficult to avoid, whereas swinging a greatsword is a comparatively lengthy process, which you can avoid, if you see the swing coming. As the 2e PHB puts it, try swinging a chair to see what speed factors are all about - far too many people think that swinging a sword is very quick, but if they actually tried to do, they'd realise that large swords are actually very heavy and therefore slow weapons. Skill helps a lot, of course, but that distinction is lost to D&D. Ask any live role-player who ever used a large sword, if you don't believe. Though I don't play live-RPG, I happen to know a few who do, and they agree with me on this point. You're still avoiding the question of speed and timing. Yes, you might have greater reach with your longsword/greatsword, but a quick character can certainly stop close at the right moment and stab you before you can swing your sword at him. This is especially true in a large combat situation, where you have other enemies to consider, and which therefore allows the guy with the dagger to time his approach, while you're busy with another enemy.

Because a Jedi is not some merc or bounty hunter who doesn't have any discipline. A Jedi is discipline personified. Civilians can play around with dual-vibroblades all they like, but a Jedi wouldn't even pick one up unless he/she could achieve a level of mastery over it that an uncivilized brute of a Mandalorian couldn't even imagine. Pick up a copy of Miyomoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings," and you'll understand what I'm getting at. Plus, it's canon for the EU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightsaber_combat Dual-saber wielding is an advanced form of combat. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Be that as it may, canon already has non-jedi master characters who wield two lightsabers. Ventress did it in the Clone Wars cartoons, and she wasn't even a real sith. Luke did it during a confrontation with Lumiya a few years after ROTJ, which was well before he could be called a master. Oh, and Anakin did it as a padawan in Episode II...

Eeew! That's horrible! I hate spiders - disgusting vermin!

My position is that any rule in any RPG that does not serve to suspend disbelief is a problem. Of course D&D is not supposed to be realistic, but that doesn't mean we should accept rules that are just examples of basic stupidity. I mean, even by 2e rules, a warrior can never take more than 60 hp (and that's exceedingly unlikely on 6d10) from any fall, which is a preposterous rule if the warrior is falling off a mountain wearing full plate onto pointed rocks. 3e also continues to support the idiotic notion that a high-level warrior can ignore any thief sneaking up on him, because there is no way the thief can do enough damage to kill him outright. That's actually worse in 3e, because you no longer stop to roll for hit points at high levels, and the hp-ratio between a normal man and a 20th level warrior is therefore even more unrealistic. Does it serve to enhance good role-playing that the warrior cannot be killed even if the thief puts a knife right in his heart? Whatever the answer is to that has little to do with whether the rules are "realistic" or not. You're right - it doesn't. Which is why there is the "casting on the defensive" option, where it's assumed that you're trying to wave your hands faster than your enemy can react. Because you're waving hands so fast, you have to make a concentration check to do it right and not miscast. There you have it - nearly any rule can be easily justified. But there's no reason to do that, really. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 2e casting times were pretty fixed, no matter what the situation. I always assumed it was the same in 3e, except now now actions have no timing any more. A knife should be a faster weapon than a two-handed sword in 3e, but it isn't - the weapon is simply a non-factor. I do, actually. I don't mind the idea that you get to roll a check to see if you can focus on the spell to cast in anyway, but concentration should definitely be impaired when someone is whipping you with the sharp end of his sword. In 2e it was impaired even if you were protected by a Stoneskin spell, which is still logical and appropriate - how can you cast a spell requiring somatic components while a giant is jumping on you? Yet in 3e, this should still be possible somehow... " The worst part is that the wizard is even more out of balance in 3e than the 2e. In earlier editions of D&D, then wizard was weak at low levels, but gained great power later. But even at the high levels, you could get to him, if you could get close and hit him. Not so in 3e - now the life of the "mageling" is basically forfeit once enemies are close because he has no skill in combat, but neither can he cast spells to defend himself, and he probably doesn't have the spells to protect himself with anyway - he might just as well simply lie down and die. But the 3e archmage is insanely powerful - he likely has a gazillion spells protecting him, and even if the enemies get close, he can probably concentrate through severe physical pain. So much for game balance... not to mention game design.

2e may not have a unified mechanic, but then so what? It's not as if rolling 1d100 rather than 1d20 for the thieving skills amounts to rocket science. The mechanics may have been spread over all sorts of mechanics, but those mechanics were actually rather intuitive and self-explanatory - they required very little or no explanation to grasp. Not so in 3e. So the fact that 3e has a unified mechanic is not a positive issue in itself to me. On the contrary, I find that the system is frequently bent all out of shape just for the sake of catering to the mechanic. For example, all the skill increases per class seem to have no logic to them at all - why do barbarians and rangers gain more skill points per level than cleric and wizards when the latter are supposed to be the scholars who learn all the academic skills? Because they are "supposed" to have higher Intelligence and so "supposed" to end up with a higher number of skill points per level that the ranger or barbarian in spite of getting less by default. That's an illogical rule bent out of shape for the purpose of game balance, and it's not very pretty game design. The same thing is true for many of the class/cross-class skill decisions. Why isn't Swim a class skill for clerics, for example? After all, the cleric could be a priest of the god of the sea, and so swimming would be relevant. Just attempts at weird game balance, I guess, but there is no explanation, and unlike 2e it's actually really costly to choose to "wrong" skills for your character. That's not freedom in character creation. Well, "free attacks" were in 2e as well. And 1e had several flaws IMO. I mean, will you truly claim that the assassin's kill-table didn't steal from role-playing? The bard was also a very strange creature in 1e, though the ranger was definitely much more interesting than in both 2e and 3e. And 2e is definitely far closer to 1e than 3e is to 2e. 2e had a "grandfather clause" to cater to 1e fans. The systems were also fairly close, since 2e was certainly a revision of 1e. 3e is not a revision of 2e - it's a different game. Still not logical. You're missing the point of timed actions - yes, I'm open to attack if I drop my guard, but it does not automatically follow from that that my enemy will be able to use it before I act. This is particularly true for spellcasting, where 3e would have us believe that reacting to a dropped guard and swinging a sword is automatically faster than any wave of a wizard's hand. It's just bad logic applied broadly, clumsily and ugly.

There is a list in the article. Not that I disagree , but the law is the law until it's changed. It's not really a double standard because there is no law saying you cant draw Mohamad. But there is a law that says you can't deny the halocaust (in those listed countries). Given his apparent contrition 3 years is ridiculous even if you took the law seriously. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Even so, I do tend to agree a bit with Volourn. That Irving is criticised for claiming there was no holocaust is not a problem as such. As a historian, he is considered an authority on the matter to some degree, and when he then questions a historical fact, he is essentially lying about what truly happened. What's not okay, however, is that he has since admitted that he was mistaken, and yet they will not allow him to take back his statements. That's not so cool. I might think that he changed his position mainly to avoid a harsh outcome of the trial, but factual mistakes are made all the time, and if it is deemed acceptable for some to take back their statements, then it is inexcusable that they will not allow Irving to. That makes it look like he was to made an example of, and that the outcome of the trial was therefore motivated by politics instead of judicial considerations. And that is inexcusable. Politics should have no place in the court room. Judges should not be politicians, or else the division of power is threatened.

I think the True Sith would be those that are the species known as Sith (IIRC, Ludo Kressh, Naga Sadow, et. al.) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not so sure the Sith species any longer exists at this point. It seems to have pretty much ceased to exist by the time of the Hyperspace Wars a thousand years before KotOR1. They are partially Sith, though, since the dark jedi interbred for centuries with the original Sith species. Naga Sadow is a special case, though, since he is said to have "true jedi blood", whatever that means. He still doesn't look quite human, though more so than Ludo Kressh.

From Wikipedia: I know we should not trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, but is there any truth to this? It would explain the remote's hologram of Bao-Dur towards the end of the game.

Definitely light side. I only play dark side to see the alternate chain of events and movies, and I feel like a creep when I do. Hence I've only ever played DS once for each KotOR game. People who like DS will almost certainly disagree with me on this, but I always feel that the appeal of being evil in games like this is because our society has advanced to a point where morality is almost guaranteed by law, so that you really can't do nasty things. That's a good thing, but it does leave vacuum or lack of choice that people then fill with "make believe" evil in games like these. You can also feel a strange sense of freedom in that, since you're able to truly horrendous acts. But I think it's usually because people don't have a lot of imagination as to how nasty evil themes can really be. I don't need that myself, and so I don't enjoy playing evil. I always think of Shakespeare's Macbeth or, more relevant, Richard III, when it comes to assuming an evil role. Somehow being an evil manipulator who suspects everything and treats everybody as a means for more power only is just too easy. If I use my skills and abilities only toward selfish ends, then I can never trust anybody, and so I'm doomed to be either alone or else to be betrayed. And I can never feel safe, because everybody is looking to bring me down... :ph34r:

My favorite comment

I'm still trying to cope with the fact that they made Apollo commander of the Pegasus. That was a surprise to say the least

You refer to the comment about not wanting to read plot suggestions? Actually I don't pay that any attention. If people want to post plot suggestions then they will and should. Besides, many of us have posted them in the past, only we didn't exactly want the same things in the game. Oh well... I don't discuss it anymore, because I sort of regret that I posted my own ideas. Not that I mind other people reading it, but now I'm thinking I'll be disappointed when K3 does come out and it's not what I expected. I would have been better off not thinking about it and instead just accepted the surprise of the next game's plot...

In that case I prefer N to any of the alternatives.