Jediphile

Haha!.... awesome.. Is your campaign currently based in the Broken Lands or does that just happen to be one of the many nations they have traveled to in the Known World? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We're in early AC 1011 and one PC is a dwarf, so the group will be heavily involved in the clan war in Rockhome, which will eventually lead to a confrontation when Thar's hordes invade. I also updated Denwarf to my 2e version, and he's an absolute monster <_<

What enemies do you suggest at lvl 12-22? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The PCs in my campaign are all at levels 13-15, but though they like showing off their power, they've come to be cautious out of respect for my ability to create monster NPCs they can't handle. In one adventure they followed this lowly mage down a dungeon to a confrontation with a lich and his cronies (fire elementals, iron golems and a few demons (balor and merilith Tanar'ri)). During the entire confrontation, the lowly mage turned out to be a major enemy of the PCs (level 26 mage), and though they survived the fight, he took them all captive. Alternatively he would have just teleported away, leaving them behind to be killed by the lich and his cronies. At another time I created a sort of rival group of NPCs, who were all bounty hunters hired to capture the PCs. And they did. Their leader was a 25th level fighter. In an upcoming adventure, the PCs just might come face to face with the legendary orc-king Thar (Lancer will know who this is), who is (IMC) a 27th-fighter *and* 12th-level shaman. Oh, and he's a nosferatu-vampire too, only the PCs don't know that Let the PCs see they're great adventurers who can easily defeat a warband of 10 orcs, but don't be afraid to create more powerful enemy NPCs to deflate their egos a bit if the situation calls for it. I find this works best if the group is bested by a single enemy, but if not, then a coordinated group will do as well.

I'd agree with that, but then Revan is at war with the true Sith to save the republic. What will he have to do to fight them? How far will he have to go? We all know where war has led the jedi before, so maybe Revan left alone because he didn't want his earlier fate of becoming Darth Revan to befall his friends...

The way you keep ignoring my point that an anti-religious ideology by definition has religious aspects to it, you mean? However, I shall drop the matter since the discussion isn't going anywhere and since it's off topic in the first place. The topic here is the islamic reaction to what a newspaper in Denmark published. And in doing so he used religion as a tool, which is my point - religion can and has always be twisted to suit whatever cause someone in power wants it to. Most religions say that the followers shouldn't kill and shouldn't be intolerant, yet most the most intolerant people tend to be highly religious people...

The true Sith are a nasty lot, no doubt about it. As for the Nihilus idea, I think I'm responsible for that. Read here for context. But how can you say Nihilus was there before the Exile? Nobody had heard about Nihilus until a few years (at the earliest) before KotOR2 begins, while the Exile fought in the Mandalorian Wars a full decade before. Also, note what the masters tell the Exile when they meet on Dantooine in KotOR2: "The last Jedi conclave was on Katarr, a Miraluka colony. And all of Katarr was destroyed, all of the Jedi killed...Including Master Zhar... Master Vandar... A Jedi doesn't care if he dies. Everyone does, but when we fight, when we sacrifice ourselves, it is for others, for the greater good. But our presence must not endanger others. And as long as we were visible targets, we were a threat to everything around us.There was a gathering of Jedi on the planet - when we realized that something was attacking us, we resolved to meet secretly to attempt to find this threat.Then... Katarr was no more.When we felt Katarr die, there is something we felt, something we'd felt once before. An echo in the Force.We'd felt it before when you stood before us. Whatever this threat, whatever this hunger is, it is something tied to you, something you have experienced directly. This echo travels in the places where death has walked, where planets have died. Massacres fuel its power, the death of life fuels it." Here the connection between Nihilus and the Exile is rather clear - the masters felt the same echo in Nihilus that they had felt from the Exile years before when they exiled him. Of course, it might then be argued that this is merely a reference to the horrors of Malachor V that spawned both Nihilus and made the Exile what he has become. However, another part of the masters meeting suggests otherwise: "The Sith are a threat, it is true. But the threat they present... it is tied to you in some way. The echo we have felt on the worlds we have walked - we have encountered it only once before, when you stood before us at your trial.We believe that somehow, you are creating this - or that the Sith have learned this technique from you."

Since you chose to completely ignore my point that Hitler tried to exploit the religious issue, it is pointless to debate this further... 1. Never said religion was the cause of all wars, just most. 2. So you're arguing that Stalin targeting all religious followers in communist Russia is not an issue with religious connotations? An interesting way of thinking indeed...

And how many wars have NOT been fought in the name of religion? I'll say it again: read some history. Because religious wars only make up a small fraction of historical conflicts. I also hope you realize the irony of your statements. You're so opposed to wars fought in the name of Christianity, yet you seem opposed to the pro-life stance as well. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Try looking at most wars and then consider whether religion had relevance. It is frequently the case. For example, WW2 has ties to a confrontation between the jewish faith and Hitler's interpretation of christianity. Now, I know you'll say that Hitler's philosophies are not very christian and I agree with that, but the point is that religion was still an issue that served as a convenient pretense for pursuing the jews. If religion had not been an issue, it would have been more difficult for the nazis to do what they did. As for the pro-life example, I never spoke out for or against, so I would thank you for demonstrationing some of the tolerance you question yourself and refrain from putting words in my mouth.

How is wearing a cross "sticking it in everybody's face"? If that's how you view it, then you seriously need to grow up and learn to be more tolerant. I agree with you on the apology stance, but that's not what I'm talking about here. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then you're off-topic. I really don't care if people wear religious icons or a headscarf, but some of those do scare people, and that is a problem whether we like to admit it or not. There is a great need for tolerance, yes, but that goes more for many of those people who do wear religious icons than for those that don't. Intolerance is wrong, my friend, and that's what I see coming out of you. If we live in a free society, we should be able to express our religion OUTSIDE of our homes. If not, then the concept of "freedom" is a lie. As for pro-life "propaganda", I could think of worse things. Besides, it's not as if you have to be religious to be pro-life. You could be an atheist and be against abortion. Heck, I'll say it right now: I oppose abortion too, except in some specific cases. I'm sure a lot less people would be supportive of abortion if they came flat out and said "We want the right to kill our babies" As for religion being the main cause of war and death in history, that's an utterly stupid statement not backed up by facts whatsoever; more like a statement based on prejudice and ignorance. Do your self a favor and learn some history, then come back. But I'm not surprised to hear that, though, and your statement right after that borders on bigotry. Congratulations, you've done more damage to yourself than I could have. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Crusades... The Spanish Inquisition... And that's just Christianity - all in the name of holy Christ... The Bible says that "thou shalt not kill", yet that is the phrase that has been ignored the most, it seems... Maybe you should take your own advice and read some history...

Well, you don't actually need gods to make the PCs think twice (though it does make violence on their part irrelevant - they gods are not going to care either way... In fact, they'd probably care less if the PCs are violent). To make the PCs think twice, give them a mission, where they have to protect some lowly 0-level character (in D&D terms) who is the daughter of some important family or who is significant to stopped a conflict for some reason. That way even the encounter with a group of orcs because lethal, because while the PCs will undoubtedly survive and win the battle, they can fail in their mission if the person they are to protect comes under attack even once. I once ran a scenario where the PCs had to defend and organize a small walled human village during an orcish attack. The PCs decided to make it a straight fight with the result that they won, but with all but a handful of the villagers (of 150+) were killed. They might have won the battle, but the players sure didn't feel much sense of victory...

I can see it now............. KotOR3: Darth Nihilus Strikes Back! :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are actually reasons why that could happen that are not corny. Read through this topic if you're interested...

Yet you cannot simply disregard its religious significance. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I disagree with that, actually. The dresscode should not take religious significance into consideration, because religion should be an issue in the first place. If people don't like that, then fine - go work someplace else, where it isn't a problem. It never fails to surprise me that people are so desperate to express their religion and are then all offended when strict adherence to it brings conflict with the rest of society. Society is what it is and religion is what it is, so make up your mind which is more important to you and live with the consequences. I actually admire people who accept limitations on religious or philosophical grounds, but it seems there are loads of people who are fine with their religion imposing limitations upon them, but are then all offended when that choice limits them in the rest of society. Grow up, already...

It's not the same thing. Besides, someone's faith is a little more serious than the matter you just described. Faith shouldn't be waved around as some "magical shield", but I think it's fair that society not try to repress or silence faith of any kind just because it might be a public place. In France, they're banning Muslim women from wearing headscarves, and Chistians from wearing large crosses. Is that fair? Why do they have to be silenced? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They don't have to be silenced, but religion is a personal affair. There is no need to stick it in everybody's face every two seconds. Now, I may personally think that the french laws are too harsh or that what the danish newspaper did was impolite, but now muslim countries are demanding that Denmark apologize and punish the newspaper, and that's completely insane. I really don't care what faith people have, but I do care to preserve the right to free speech. If the choice is between the right to wear religious icons and right to free speech, then I'll go for the latter every time. Still, that's just me. I'm not really religious and probably more of an agnostic. I tend to agree more with something Eddie Izzard once said, ""I don't believe religions are religions. No, I believe they're philosophies with some good ideas and some ****ing weird ones!" Please inform me what authority you have that gives you the right to tell me that my attitude is wrong. On second thought, you shouldn't bother, since I'm not going to accept it regardless... As for expression of religion in a public space, I wonder if we should then allow that carry over to other topics as well. Should we let people carry pro-life or political propaganda around with them wherever they please? You might think that's different, but I'm not supporting some special rights just because someone argues religion, as to me it's just another subject like everything else. In fact, being the major reason for war and death throughout history, religious expression in public space is probably the first thing we should ban on that list... Except I don't generally support laws that dictate what people can or cannot express either... <_<

Article Please explain to me if I'm wrong or mistaken (hell, I know I can be a little silly sometimes :"> ), but is that not a tad hypocritical? It's a private company. They have a dress code. Your religion can not force a company to change it's dress code and they are entitled to not employ you if you do not want to abide by it... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I see... that makes sense... so the whole thing about respecting people's religious freedom was a lie... ok... thanks for clearing that up for me Gorth <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shouldn't people be responsible for the religion they choose and deal with the consequences? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I think they should. After all, can you imagine someone working in a bank showing up for work dressed as a car mechanic? Everybody accepts that, but when religion is involved, people suddenly want all sorts of special priviledges out of respect for their faith. But faith is not some magical shield you wave around to make everybody submit to what you want, nor should it be. The dress code of a company will always be set by the employer. Personally I don't see the problem with someone wearing a headscarf in a supermarket, but then that's just the point - that's my opinion, and the employer doesn't have to agree with me.

Of the choices available I liked Nihilus best. But if he had been on the list, I would have taken the central character of Star Wars: Darth Vader.

According to the speculation, Obsidian had asked about doing a content patch, but the request was denied by LA. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So its mainly on LA then... they pushed Obsidian at the end and then wouldnt let them fix it?? man that sucks... LA has a real problem with pushing out stuff when its not ready.. learned that with SWG... but some of it was SOE also.. on SWG lol <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Add to that the Xbox was pushed for the xmas release, while the PC was set for a january/febuary release and so could easily have been "postponed" a month for sake of completion without losing the xmas sale and we begin to get a pretty clear picture that the PC was not allowed to be better than the Xbox version in any way. A curse on the people who forced that decision, which was not Obsidian... "

Yeah, I thought commanding Zaalbar to kill Mission was pretty low thing to do, because you corrupt your loyal follower by making him kill a young innocent girl, who is also his best friend. That's got to be worthy of a Dark Lord. There are other examples in K2, though. Getting the mother in the refugee sector of Nar Shaddaa to sell herself into slavery to be with her daughter is also fairly nasty, as is leaving the Twi'lek dancer on Telos' Citadel station in slavery and then collect her earnings, once you've gotten possession of her. But I've always hated playing DS - it always makes me feel low. And it's just too easy behaving like a jerk and treating people like dirt - the feeling is hollow for me, and it always makes me think of Shakespeare's Richard III: "I am a villain... ...There is no creature that loves me; And if I die, no soul will pity me: Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself find in myself no pity to myself?"

Though I don't agree with you on RT combat which incidentally is not what I'm talking about I wouldn't buy this game on a console and on top of that I'd spit on anything from Obsidian or LA from then on if they abandon the PC platform. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree completely. Now, these are just rumors, and even if they're right, that could just mean that the console-versions are done first with the PC version to follow, just as for K2. But I'm not jumping onto the console-bandwagon - if K3 doesn't come out for the PC, then I'm not going to play, and I'll refuse to buy any games from the involved companies anymore - if they deem me an unfit customer, then I'll reciprocate and take my business elsewhere. It's bad enough that I have to live with all the "must fit the console" nonsense of previous KotOR games as it is... :angry: Also, why on Earth wouldn't you be able to do real-time combat on the PC?!?

I disagree. We already had the 'last jedi' bit in K2, and it's a shameless copy of the original trilogy anyway. I'd rather want to being with an emerging jedi order that is trying to get back to life and then go from there. I don't think the game lacks soldiers. We had Canderous in both games so far, and the game is clearly about jedi KNIGHTS anyway (note the title). Malak is dead. Let him rest in peace. I'd accept him only as a force ghost or vision (like the one in the Korriban tomb in K2). Atris may be dead or else has abandoned the force, so I'd leave her out of all as well. Oh, and Kreia was a grey jedi? I guess that's why she called herself "Darth Traya"... "

Yes, they should both return, though neither as the PC, I think. I'd want them to be at least partially playable later in the game, though - they're both rahter important characters, after all.

Yes and no... The real problem with Nihilus was that he was a push-over when you finally confronted him. Even if he cannot drain the Exile, he should still have been a nightmare to fight against. But I have my suspicions that he might return in K3. Disappearing in that red haze in K2 could be an indication that Nihilus is not quite gone yet. Besides, I want him back - Nihilus still have loads of potential.

I think we can attribute/blame this piece of information to Wikipedia. Not that I mind the comment, but I really do prefer people give their sources when saying these things, especially if that source is Wikipedia (or similar), where anyone can revise the articles and add their own speculation, which is then taken as facts by subsequent readers. Heck, I could rewrite the article to fit with my own conjecture about Nihilus' origin, but that would still just be speculation. The only ones who can tells us the truth here are the developers... or George Lucas. So let's just accept that we 'nihil' about the origin of Nihilus <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe you should add to the speculation over there <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What would be the point of that? Replacing one speculation for another seems pointless to me. Besides, my take on the origins of Nihilus is no better than anyone else's, so it's far more relevant to discuss the topic than to assume authority.

Yes, well you can blame all that on KotOR being based on the d20 RPG engine. I don't much like it either. Watering down lightsabers due to game balance while allowing rediculously powerful characters at high levels is an excellent example of the game mechanics in d20, and Star Wars really is just one example of this. I liked WEG's Star Wars game much better. But since KotOR games are based on it all, I guess we're stuck with it...

Denying players to take certain actions is akin to forcing actions upon them whether they like it or not, aka "railroading". I hate it myself as a player and go to great lengths to avoid it in my own campaign. Even if the players cannot alter the outcome of a certain situation for various reasons, I do go out of my way to give them the impression that they might have been able to influence the situation. It's not something I would advice, since control over the PC's action is about the only measure of control and influence a player has in an RPG. So if you begin messing with that, then you risk having the players see themselves as spectators rather than participants in the plot, and once that happens the illusion of interaction is gone, which is fatal to any RPG experience. I've run D&D games where the players were helpless simply on the basis of how the various spells used against them were described in the rules - they couldn't argue against my rulings, but they sure didn't enjoy the experience... I'd say you should rather introduce really good reasons why they shouldn't resort to violence. There are several ways to do that. One is the alter the battleground so that a physical confrontation is really undesirable (edge of a cliff, trolls standing in a puddle of oil (= no fire or Ka-Boom!), or similar) or by introducing innocent bystanders (crowds of common people who would be killed or the bad guys holding a knife to the throat of a hostage, so that there is no way to fight without them killing the hostage first).

Precisely. After having Marcus repaint the walls of several bases with the brain matter of several companions, I took all burst weapons away from the NPCs and instead let Marcus build energy weapons. The only character I would allow to have a burst weapon was the Chosen One, since I had some control over it at least...

It would make a little sense, since the Republic put their best ships and much of their combined fleet under the command of Revan and Malak when they decided to go and fight the Mandalorians (don't forget that while the jedi council cast them out, the republic supported those jedi who went to war and saw them as heroes). In that case all the best ships would have been destroyed during the Mandalorian Wars or else disappeared along with the rest of Revan and Malak's forces, and the republic is still just trying to rebuilt in K1 and even in K2.