Jediphile

What I don't get is that when the jedi council does something underhanded and manipulative, then it's all okay and justified and "no other way", but when it's suggested that Revan might have had similar motives, then it's "no, cannot be" - impossible and just bad storytelling... I thought you just established in your last post that we don't know what Revan's motives were... In fact, I know you did: 1. Jedi did fight in the war. 2. It was former jedi against current jedi. Or 2a. Dark jedi vs. jedi 3. Most people don't distinguish much between jedi and sith, so... 4. The jedi that turned sith were the former jedi students that the jedi masters had forbidden to go to war against the Mandalorians and so forced them to either submit totally to the masters orders and deny their training to protect the innocent or else to rebel against their masters. No outside Sith influence there - the masters created the conflict themselves, so it's fair to assign it internally to the jedi order. You seem to like the idea that just because the jedi that followed Revan and Malak because Sith, that suddenly means that they were never jedi or that the masters did not share responsibility for what became of them. This is a view not even shared by all the masters... Zez-Kai Ell: "No, no - they were not to blame, but many of the Order did so - it was a difficult time, a time of strong emotion.Perhaps the Council, perhaps the Order itself had grown arrogant in their teachings. It is easy to cast blame, but it is perhaps time the Order accepted responsibility for their teachings, and their arrogance, and come to recognize that perhaps we are flawed.Not once did I hear one of the Council claim responsibility for Revan, for Exar Kun, for Ulic, for Malak... or for you."

So he sacrificed the Republic's defenders to save the Republic itself. Somehow that doesn't look much worse to me than using Revan to destroy the Sith... Besides, what would the jedi defend if the Republic fell? As GoA said before - he turned the pacifistic jedi into warriors... The reason seems rather obvious to me. This is pure conjecture - we have no knowledge of what sort of regime Revan would have set up in the Republic's place. Sidious didn't destoy any worlds... *cough* Alderaan *cough*... Sorry, really got to do something about that cyber-throat Still to suggest that Sidious didn't destroy the Republic is a pretty big stretch to me - Sidious *annihilated* the Republic. And how did you say yourself above - "But this is still effectively destroying the Jedi. The Jedi were one of the defining characteristics of the Republic." Great - you just contradicted yourself in one post " How does historians today know what Napoleon's motives were - or Hiltler's or Stalin's for that matter - they didn't associate with any of them... GOTO analyzes the situation and makes conclusions. As a droid he has several advantages when he does so. For one, as a droid he has no emotional attachments to "Revan having to be evil for attacking this or that world" or "Revan must be good, since he destroyed the StarForge and overthrew Malak". GOTO is a cold anc calculating machine with all the humanity or compassion of rock, but that and his cold intelligence also means that his analysis is very objective. I wouldn't cast it aside so easily.

Of course it's all speculation, and I have never said otherwise. When I restated the bit you quoted, it was because I had, by then, quoted GOTO thrice without Mothman acknowledging the point that Revan might - note, *might* - have made a conscious sacrifice to embrance the dark side to save the Republic from the true Sith. I didn't not say, however, that this was a fact. Because you're right so far - we don't know what Revan's motives were. We still don't. But that's also the point - nor do we know that he just fell to the dark side because he was corrupted. We don't know that either. Now, when we discuss these things, how do we go about doing it? Am I not permitted in using quotes from the game to support my conclusions because they are speculative? If not, then what am I to base my conclusions on? Instead we can have have a poll where everybody just says what they think happened or will happen. I do not find that to be a very positive thing, since it won't lead us to any conclusions, as far as I can tell. YMMV... I have quoted Kreia, HK-47, and GOTO all echoing (you know you love that word, eh? ) similar thoughts on the subject. As you say, the Disciple does too. Am I not to include this in my analysis because it's speculative? In that case there can be no analysis or conclusion, because the game communicates to us only through what the characters say. It does not make my points true, no, but it is more convincing to quote three or four characters for making suggestions that support a conclusion than it is to have one or none. I do fail to see, though, how I suggest that the Disciple's word is gospel. He says what he says, and I will consider that. I do not find him to be as untruthful as Kreia often is, so I will be more skeptical of what she says, like when I doubt her for saying that Arren Kae was exiled for having a child... But what do you base that assumption on? We really have no idea when Revan learned this, and some of Kreia's comments suggested to me that he knew before this. But no, we don't know that. We also don't know that he didn't, though. Yes, I'd tend to agree more with that. Revan showed little restraint in his conquests. He did leave the potential behind for the later stand against the true Sith, but we don't know if that was to save the Republic - which I doubt - or to protect his new empire. I even consider it possible that he wanted his own powerful empire in time for the stand, so that he could himself conquer the true Sith empire and add it to his own, learn its secrets for himself, and grow even more powerful. As I've said elsewhere, the meeting where they sentence the Exile is hurt by bad writing, because they don't explain the matter well. Their decision is actually quite understandable, but they don't give you time, as a player, to absorb the validity of the point they make, and so the masters come off as incredibly unfair and judgmental. But I must say that apart from the last meeting, I liked the masters, apart from Atris and Vrook. I liked Zez-Kai Ell best, because he demonstrates true introspection and regret over some of their choices. I think I would have really liked Vash too, from what we know or can find out about her. Kavar is more of a warrior type, but I find he has some very redeeming qualities that humanize him. Atris is just a b**** topped only by Kreia, and Vrook is simply a grumpy old fool, though... If only the meeting with the masters hadn't been so rushed... Did we? I thought they only mentioned Vrook and Zhar in K2, suggesting that Dorak might have died in Malak's attack. But I don't really remember... Simple - because we, as players, care more about masters we met in K1 than some generic faceless master we hear about having died in K2. They probably didn't kill Vrook because it would just have been cheered by too many - sort of it Lucas had killed Jar-Jar on screen in the movies Personally I liked them. Except Atris... and Vrook. Well, I guess it's partly to underscore the idea that contentment is dangerous, because you risk being obvious to the dangers around you. Besides, if the masters did everything right, there should be no need for your own character to grow powerful and save (or conquer) the galaxy, so there are strong plot reasons for it too.

The masters are meeting on Dantooine... Zez-Kai Ell: "So, we're resolved to cut the Exile off from the force?" Vrook: "Of course - there is no other way!" Kavar: "I just hope he won't take it too hard and try to stop us..." Zez-Kai Ell: "Well, he does have unique powers, and he might not go along with our decision. You sure we shouldn't keep that shuttle handy in case..." Vrook [interrupting]: "Evacuate?!? In our moment of triumph?!? I think you overestimate his chances!!!"

From the dialog.tlk file - this happens during the meetings with the masters on Dantooine. I don't recall who says what, but it doesn't matter... "It is not the strength of a Jedi you feel." " He's right. It's... all the death you've caused to get here. You feed on it, and you grow stronger. You're like Malachor... it's in you, it's what you are now. You must have noticed as you've fought across all these planets, killing hundreds - only to become more and more powerful. Why do you think that was?" "But what's worse, is that bonding you have - it hasn't gone away. It's gotten stronger, and the more attachments you form, the more you draw others to you.And that is why you are a threat to us all.What if other Jedi went to war as you did, suffered the same events, and emerged as you did. What if there was a crucible that trained such Jedi to consume and kill? For you, Malachor was that crucible." "What's worse, is these Sith that we face... I fear that they have learned the lesson of Malachor all too well. It is what allows them to prey on Force users, to become stronger when Force Sensitives are near. {Accusing}Somehow, they have learned their hunger from you. And so you have brought about the end of the Jedi, and perhaps all the knowledge of the Force." EDIT: Let me add this, which comes just a bit later: "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."

Atris is way older than the exile. Look at her hair. It's white. I'd say 10 yrs. apart or so. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I really don't get the impression that Atris' hair is white due to age. If it were, shouldn't it have been less white during the Exile's trial a decade before? In truth, I think the fact that Atris was already on the council while the Exile was still only a padawan is a much better argument for her being older. However, given Vandar's comment that the Exile is an "average student of the force", it may not be a relevant point...

What do you mean, exactly? And you obviously don't remember the bad guys taking over in Episode III. " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Only for a time, and they didn't even get all the jedi. Besides, there were holes in the plot IMHO. I mean, if the Sith are so dangerous and they know they are separated (since Anakin went to Mustafar), then why do Yoda and Obi-Wan promptly go, "hey, this looks dangerous - let's split up" - Palpatine is now alone on Coruscant, so you both go get him! Then you can worry about Anakin later together. But I digress... As for alternate ways to fight Malak, they are certainly there. Note how the Kolto on Manaan is said to be of vital importance to the war effort for both sides, yet when you get there, you never meet a single jedi, but there are plenty of dark jedi around... Am I the only one to find that odd? A jedi consular might have made a difference in the stand-off (in fact, one - Jolee - did in the murder case), so why hasn't the council sent someone? If Manaan had sided with the Republic, then it would have been a severe blow to the Sith war effort, yet there is not even a single jedi there to try and expose the plotting that it is painfully obvious that the Sith will try... Or Korriban. Here is an academy training dark jedi to be used in the war effort against the Republic. So why not go there in a preemptive strike to stop that source? Sent some jedi masters and wipe the place clean. But no... "Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - just because I point fingers at the jedi council does not automatically that I side with the Sith. I don't, because I can't - their acts are immoral and I would not defend them even if I wanted to. But you're missing the point that the Sith are not at the discussion here - we know that they are not nice people. That doesn't make the jedi good by default, however, nor does it mean that the jedi cannot or do not do wrong things. As I recall, even Zez-Kai Ell admits that the masters cannot fault the students who followed Revan for their choice. I do see the black and white. If I did not, then I could scarcely argue that the masters are also at fault morally. My point that they are equally to blame if they embrace the same sort of tactics as the sith seems to be lost on you, however. To me this underscores the point that you seem unable to look at the matter objectively. Why? Because the masters were actually more justified in that choice than in the one they made for Revan. In the first you have Revan, and you can (or perhaps must, but that's still an open question) use him to save the Republic. But whether you do or not, the people will live on, even were it under sith rule and with the jedi in hiding. In K2, however,you have the Exile, a being with the power to destroy the force and perhaps all life itself. He doesn't even realize it, he has set incredibly destructive forces free against the galaxy, he leeches the lifeforce away from others, and he doesn't seem to have any sort of control over his ability. At any time, his ability could mean utter death to all life everywhere for all we know, so what to do? We cut him off from the force so that he will no longer hurt others with his uncontrolled ability. Now, in both cases you have a situation where you sacrifice the individual for the greater good, except that in the second the "punishment" is much less severe - losing the ability to use the force is nothing next to being forced into unwitting slavery to serve your enemies and then used against your own - and the danger is also much greater - destruction to the force and perhaps all life everywhere as opposed to the "mere" fall of the Republic... Clearly the sentence is harsher for Revan in a situation where "only" the Republic is at stake, whereas the Exile will merely lose his connection to the force for the greater good of preserving all life and the force. The argument that Revan deserves it for his crimes is invalid since you have taken away his personality and his memory of it all - he has become a new person now and so cannot be held accountable for former crimes. You cannot sentence or punish a man for what he might do. By that reasoning, we should all be punished for the potential crimes we might commit, since we may all turn to violent crime under extreme circumstances. You can ask any lawyer or judge and get the same answer (I should hope...). As I said before, if Revan was leaning toward DS on his arrival to Dantooine, then I might be likely to agree, but playing LS has no bearing, and so it's a moot point. Ah, but to use your own reasoning, Revan was only level 2 when he met Carth, so that would be relevant. It does not apply to Bastila, however, since you had long since passed level 4 when she joins Is the jedi council on Dantooine? No, it's on Coruscant. The masters on Dantooine even admit that to Revan. And besides, you talked about generals and warleaders. Whereas the jedi do command the Republic fleets or their movements during war... No, I said "diversion". Okay, Bastila and Revan go to find the starmaps so the StarForge can be located. None of the masters go with them because that will make it more likely that Malak will detect them and stop them. So instead the masters can: Option 1: Sit around sipping tea on Dantooine until Malak finds his prey (Bastila and Revan) or attacks the masters on Dantooine Option 2: Go to Alderaan, Onderon, Corellia, or wherever the frontlines are, so that Malak will be drawn to their presence there instead of being drawn to Revan and Bastila. Besides, on the frontlines they might even serve to save some of those Republic lives they claim to be so concerned about... So, which did the masters choose...? "

Of course there was another way - the good guys always win, after all Besides, I already said that Bastila was clearly a threat to the Sith's plans, or Malak wounldn't have bothered to hunt her down, so I've already given one. Ah, but to the Sith accumulating power is religious doctrine, and if you place your own standards above their's, then you have to accept that others may do the same to you. I don't think any of us would want to try that less traveled road. And why exactly do I not acknowledge that there is no black and white? Obi-Wan himself said, that only the Sith deal in absolutes, so I fail to see my skepticism as proof of my own alleged inability to not see the difference between right and wrong (or black and white, as it were). Instead you seem to argue that the jedi council's decision cannot be questioned because they are the good guys and therefore above suspicion. But I think nobody is above the law and that blind faith is the crutch of fools... YMMV. 3. So you wouldn't call killing thousands (or in the game, millions) of innocent people a crime? Wow. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry for the length here, but I quoted myself so that you or anyone else can tell me just where exactly in the above I said that killing thousands of innocent people wasn't a crime ... I would have studied him and evaluated him based on the choices of the new personality. And if I found him to be an ethical person, then I would have told him the truth and *asked* for his assistance. It speaks volumes to me that the masters never do this no matter how LS you've played Revan up to that point. Revan was generally around level 6 or 7 when Bastila joined the group, and yet she was only level 4... Not a mere question of game mechanics - Jolee and Juhani were both level 6, for example. And at the risk of repeating myself, "Even the masters say that she is young and inexperienced." Maybe I should not have replied to this post, since your tones doesn't suggest to me that you're willing to discuss this... As for planning, I don't see what jedi masters can bring to the table that generals cannot - leave the strategy of the war to people like Dodonna. The jedi masters are far more effective in the war effort if they actually get out there and try to stop the Sith themselves. This is even more relevant if they cannot go with Bastila (and yes, surprised though you may be, I do listen to the game " ), since Malak then won't be hunting for Bastila and instead has to stand against the masters who kill his jedi followers. Even Aragorn and Legolas knew this - it's called diversion.

I find that in many an RPG, you eventually run into the difference between role-playing and roll-playing. Some people actually like the latter, and I don't mean to sound judgmental when I say that - it's quite fine that they do, just as long as they'll accept that I don't. I find that role-playing is better the deeper it gets, and I can feel just fine playing several sessions as a player without ever having to roll my dice (though few RPGs lend themselves well to that...). As a GM I definitely place most focus on the role-playing aspect, even when I play AD&D Mystara - I try to cut down on the boring (IMHO) battles and instead place the PCs in what I hope are interesting situations, where their immediate choices might have a lot of consequence. But even among deep role-players there are a lot of differences between the styles. I, for one, always try to use the backgrounds that my players have detailed for their characters as a basis for putting them right in the middle of things by the way of family, old friends, past experiences, etc. Some GMs prefer to keep away from that, however, and embrace a more generic approach, where the backgrounds of the PCs really doesn't matter that much. The advantage to such plots is that they can be used over and over, because the identities of the PCs are a non-factor. But I think that takes a bit away from the game. I like to "chain" my plots together so that the players get involved in the next story because of something they did or didn't do in the last one, or they could become involved because the character has not done something for a long time, such as seeing to family duties while he or she was off adventuring in some foreign place. How do people out there see this? What sort of approach do you take? Is the PCs' background important or are they non-factors in your games? And much continuity do you place in your game - how much does the outcome of one plot affect your gameworld and subsequent plots?

I don't want to not have a choice regarding my character's race. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A double negation... Don't see too many of those. "What's the bleeding point? You can't have any - you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate - you're going to keep it in a box?!?" Seriously - don't get me started. Seriously!!

To quote the Babylon 5 episode "Point of No Return": "There is always choice. We say there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with a decision we have already made". Let's look at the other way around - the Sith capture a jedi, reprogram his mind and then use him to destroy the Republic and the jedi order, all under the pretense that he is one of the apprentices of the great sith lords. Is this cruel? It can only be so if one assumes a narrow perspective of black-and-white, where the good guys are always right and the bad guys are always wrong, and so you don't have to look at the annoying inconvenience of actually subjecting the choices of both sides to moral and ethical standards. Now, I know that Star Wars is *very* black-and-white to say the least, but it's not like that in the real world. I don't mind that this was done - it makes Star Wars richer that they dare let the masters pull a dirty little secret, but if it quacks like a duck... It's so much that the masters decided to do it, it's that they try to suggest that they are not responsible for it with comments of how it was necessary and how it was the only choice... No, it wasn't, and they're not fit to be masters if they won't accept the responsibility of their choice! The fact alone that Malak is hellbent on getting rid of Bastila tells us that the Republic is still alive and kicking - if the Republic was doomed, then Malak really wouldn't see her as a potential threat. The problem with "crimes against humanity" is who gets to decide that they are crimes? I knew I shouldn't have mentioned Saddam Hussein (at least *I* didn't bring Bin Laden into this...). What you're suggesting is that if had a method of forcing Saddam Hussein into revealing things about his own people and even using him as a soldier against them, then that is quite alright to do. But who gets to make that choice and on what moral basis? Taking away the rights of the individual is one of the worst things you can do to someone, and most people would rather kill than have it done to them. But not only did they do it to Revan, they also wouldn't entrust him with the truth even *after* he had saved Bastila, helped find the first starmap, etc. Even if you play him as strict LS (which I did the first time), they still won't trust him with the truth. Instead Revan discovers the truth as he travels the galaxy. Now tell me, which is the better time for Revan to discover this - at the enclave where the masters are still present to explain and defend their choice or when Revan is standing right face to face with Malak? I'd say the latter is far more dangerous given the situation. They let Revan go knowing that his past might resurface (since that is what he is using to find the starmaps) and they still won't tell him the truth? If discovered during the quest - as it was - the danger grows much greater that Revan will slip back to the DS of out pure defiance and revenge against their manipulation. So it's not just morally questionable for the masters to do - it's also strategically stupid. She joined as a 4th level jedi sentinel... Even the masters say that she is young and inexperienced. There are always alternatives. And it would have been a more compelling argument for the masters to claim there was no other choice if they didn't themselves just sent Revan and Bastila off and then promptly returned to sitting around on Dantooine waiting for Malak to destroy them...

Yes, agreed. I was thinking of it when I wrote my own story plot. Basically you would still have a core group of say four or five companions, but at every new planet you travel to, you meet one or two characters who will also join because you share interests on the planet, but only there, and who leave the group when you leave the planet. For example, I had the idea of letting the party run into Mission and Zaalbar (assuming Revan is LS) on Myrkr, where Czerka has a secret base with lots of wookiee slaves. But some wookiees have rebelled and fled to the forests, and now you must choose to help either Mission and Zaalbar (LS) or else side with Czerka (DS). If you do the former, Mission and Zaalbar join the group, but if you leave the planet or finish the quest, they both leave the group again, because their quest to free the wookiees on Myrkr still remains. Had a similar idea for Jolee (again, assuming Revan is LS) on Sleheyron...

Being forced into being a puppet soldier is a more cruel than downright execution. If that is why the masters did it, then they are truly inhuman and their claims of morality and ethics is just hypocrisy of the worst form. Precisely - you don't just return the favor. And by hiding the truth from Revan, they pretty much admitted that they didn't believe in rehabilitation. If they don't, then they should just condemn him and have him executed. That would be more merciful and ethical. I'm not certain she was the leader of that strike team - I always thought she was just part of it. I could be wrong, though. Either way, I don't think that's the reason they sent her along. As she says herself, they didn't have any other choice - Bastila had already formed the bond with Revan, and that was their one way to to find the StarForge. If they were going to use it to their advantage, then they would have to keep the two together. And they didn't send any masters along because they would have been sensed to easily by the Sith.

You can generally assume that if you talk to Kreia about it and she doesn't offer to upgrade the crystal, then it's already working as well as you can get it to work at the moment.

I don't know if you can generalize it that much... Surely you should be able to finish the game no matter which combination of classes you chose. Still, you may be right that the tactics you would have to embrace should have varied more depending on your choice. For example, while the guardian/weaponmaster would need to jump in there and hack things up, that should perhaps have been impossible for a consular/jedimaster, who would have been torn to pieces and instead should have had to plan his attack with careful use of extensive force powers.

Discovered, yes. But there is little doubt that whatever created him, it was tied to the Exile (the masters pretty much say so indirectly, and that's just because they don't know Nihilus) and it happened on Malachor V at the end of the Mandalorian Wars.

Wow. Only one voice of support for my Sentinel-turned-Jedi Master or Sith Lord (I consider them the same - since they have virtually the same abilities at opposite ends of the alignment scale...). I'm surprised - I thought the Sentinel/Sith Lord combination was so powerful, and I really can't wait to play a Sentinel/Jedi Master with Force Enlightenment and lots of force powers (with Force Storm as probably the only DS one)

"Oh my God - they killed Carth!" "The b......!"

Yes, but I think that we will see that soon in Jedi Raider - the adventures of Crara Loft :D <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When's it due? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As Obsidian would say - SOON! :D

I think the view you express is woefully incorrect, unless you're joking. Rights only matter when the time comes to test them. Just because someone did horrible things does not make it acceptable to do similar in return. Or am I to assume that Hitler should have been sent to the gaschamber if captured, or that Saddam Hussein should be executed by the same biological weapons he used himself? No, you don't respond in kind in such cases. If you did, then you admit that you're no better than the person you seek to judge. But yes, you have put your finger on where the masters went wrong - they made themselves almost as guilty as Revan himself by doing to him what he would have done to others... I sense the dark side beckoning... Better than risk his memories coming back while searching through the galaxy with only young, inexperienced Bastila to handle the situation? It's a big risk no matter how you look at it. Interestingly the masters did not choose the more ethical option. I really don't see sending Revan off into the galaxy with only young, little Bastila as "guard" to sort it out if Revan's memories suddenly returned... Oh, they sent Juhani along... Still, she had just turned to the dark side And she only comes along if Revan turns her back to the light side, yet that good act gains him no credit or trust...

I'd agree so far. Whoever Nihilus used to be - he died on Malachor. The only thing left is the shell, because Nihilus used the body as a host to manifest himself in. But there is no life in him. And I'd also agree that the Exile is completely unaware of it all. I guess he senses it on a subconscious level, since he did make a choice and does use his bonding ability, but he is not consciously aware of it, no. I he were, he would not need to seek out the masters for an answer to how his force bonding works. I do not agree that the Exile cut others off from the force, however. If he had, Revan and Malak would have suddenly had a large proportion of their converted jedi cut off from the force, and that doesn't seem to have happened. The Exile does not possess the ability to cut others off from the force - he just has the ability to form force bonds, and his greater instincts with this is what "allowed" him to sever his force tie. It let him deny the force, but he did not do so on purpose. As Kreia said, the ability cannot be taught, only experienced and used instinctively. As the masters explain, the Exile's force bonds made him feel all the suffering, and it was this very sensitivity that gave him the ability to resist - it's like a headache that you can suddenly fight because it's so intense that you act on it and resist it on instinct. The Exile's instinct was the cut his tie to the force so that the pain would stop. But I don't believe he can do it to others. Because the Exile is unique. He alone had force bonds that allowed him to experience such pain and suffering that he could react on instinct at sever his own tie to the force. As Kreia says, he alone turned away, but it was because he had no other choice. The place has a corrupting influence on all who go there, and so it was perfect for Revan's plans of jedi conversion. It did not affect the Exile directly, though, as much as it augmented the intensity with which he felt pain and suffering when the mass shadow generator was activated. What happened to him and caused the wound in the force might not have happened in another place, because the horror would not have been as profound. Yes, but though I have said otherwise myself in the past, I'm beginning to wonder if choice is not the wrong word. The Exile had no choice but to fight the horror he experienced. It was instinct, not choice, I think. The Exile/Nihilus link is problematic, because while I continue to think that Nihilus is the side of himself that the Exile instictively cast away, that doesn't explain why it was animated as Nihilus. As others have said, if it's just the dark twin of the exile, then why doesn't Nihilus' gender seem to change depending on whether you play male or female? I think Nihilus or rather his body wasn't just any jedi. For the relationship to be this powerful, it must have been someone that the Exile had a close and strong force bond with. I've speculated that it could have been the Exile's master, because I think that is the most obvious explanation, but it could also have been a very close friend or a relative (like Ulic and Cay Qel-Droma are brothers and fellow jedi as well). I actually don't think the other jedi had any choice. The Exile's forcebonding ability is at the core here, since it is what forces the Exile to experience such pain that he instinctively flees from it, which means severed his ties to the force and incidentally saving him from his dark fate... at least for a time. The Exile has been in denial about what happened for a decade, though, and must soon come to terms with what really happened. Yes, their power is exactly the same. I think they shared a powerful force bond, and then when the tragedy happened on Malachor V, the person that would become Nihilus died on Malachor. But even as he did, the Exile cut himself away from the force to avoid the pain he felt, and the wound and the anguish and dark side energies that were flowing to him through his force bonding ability with others instead got channelled to the strongest of his force bonds that remained, which led to the dead Nihilus. This created a dark being with the same powers, but which has no real life. Nihilus is the manifestation of the wound that the Exile created, and he carries all of the Exile's rejected powers and darkness with him. I don't think Nihilus did anything to Exile - the transference was all one way, as far as I can tell. Nihilus hungers for force sensitives because the force is life, and he has none of his own, and he craves it because otherwise he will simply cease to exist. And he is always looking for life, though he is not quite aware of it himself. Indeed, he is looking for specific life - he is looking for the Exile. Their disrupted nature draws him to the Exile - not purposefully, since Nihilus has no sense of awareness, it is all instinct - because he seeks to be "whole" again by reconnecting to his true self, which is the Exile. But the Exile has been gone for a decade, and so he has had to sustain himself in other ways. His hunger has grown so great at the beginning of the game, though, that it is becoming impossible for anyone to ignore. And here is perhaps the answer to something I never understood in the plot - just why is the Exile coming back to the Republic? Yes, I know Atris manipulated the events, but the Exile was never forced to go back, so why is he? Might be because he is himself drawn subconsciously to what he left behind? Nihilus certainly senses him and promptly uses Visas to find him. It is odd that she goes so quickly from serving Nihilus to serving the Exile, but it might be because she too senses on some subconscious level that they are the same. And she is perhaps more drawn to serving the Exile, since he the "real" entity. I pesonally think we will know... In K3.

Yes, but I think that we will see that soon in Jedi Raider - the adventures of Crara Loft :D

I've played the game through twice now. After trying out the base classes, I found that I liked the Sentinel best and played that. On my first play through, I switched to jedi weapon master and tore the enemies apart. It was okay for war, but didn't use the Force so much (unless you used some infinte xp points, but I couldn't be bothered... much ) Then I decided to see the DS side of the game. I heard the Sentinel/Sith Lord combination was pretty powerful, so I tried that. I must say it was very effective. My character was really a monster in lightsaber battles, even though she didn't have a dedicated combat-oriented class, and the combination with force powers made her unstopable, especially toward the end where powers like Force Crush could waste single enemies without danger. If there were more, I went in, threw them to the ground with Force Wave, then toasted them with Force Storm a few times - end of story. But I'm really more a light side kind of guy and don't enjoy playing DS so much... As the Restoration Team begins to finish stuff, I intend to start over, and I guess many others will do the same. So which combinations of starting class and prestige class are you considering? I think I might go for the Sentinel/Jedi Master this time, if only to see if it's as powerful as the sentinel/sith lord combination was... Anyone think that's a good combination?

We really don't know what happened to the Harbinger, but even if it was completely destroyed, Sion really couldn't have cared less, I think... I mean, this is a guy who has had every bone in his body shattered hundreds of times over (I wonder if the origin of that was the mass shadow generator on Malachor V - it seems to make sense...), so what does he really care if the ship explodes in a huge ball of fire? I can see it now as he stands on the bridge and watches the explosions of the asteroids coming closer... Sith assassin: "Lord Sion - the asteroids - the ship will be the destroyed! We're all going to die!!" Sion looks at the explosions: "Fine. Go ahead and blow me to kingdom come - see if I care..."

You're preaching to the choir, since I think most, if not all, have said that this should not be a KotOR title. After all, no jedi in a game called "Knights of the Old Republic" would be rather odd... " :D As for companions/NPCs in K3, I actually support the idea of fewer group members or recurring NPCs. For example, you could meet, say, Zaalbar on one planet and have him join you there, but not travel with you - if you leave the planet, then he stays until you come back. And his presence in the party would be quest-based - when you begin the relevant quest he joins, and when you finish it he leaves. Never saw the need for all those characters in the games. I never used them all in K1, and yet they had more in K2. Yes, many of them were interesting, but who really used T3 in K1 or GOTO in K2 ??? I know I didn't... Obviously the main villains of K3 must be the true Sith...