metadigital
-
Posts
13711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by metadigital
-
-
As an explanation for the shark, I'd bet that the situation was that something else was supposed to be there, but for testing purposes, they use that model. When their time grow short and they need to "cut" the factory, they were still using it.
And since they didn't actually remove the factory from the game, you can still get to it.
What does that crystal do?
First, the fish isn't in the droid factory, it is on the droid planet. Second, the Hurrikaine crystal can now be found as a normal item on a corpse if your level is high enough. It does damage +1-8 unstoppable.
So how do you get to the Droid Planet? Take a left at the Telos bunker and keep going until morning?
" Oh, and it looks nothing like a Firaxis Shark, big or little. It looks like a Dodo sitting on a big egg. (Or maybe it's got hemorrhoids ...)
-
Yes, but SW isn't Existentialistic. In SW, there is no 'infinite universes'. It's Fantasy meets Sci-Fi, and has little or NO theological base. It may have started that way, but now it's just a cool timeline for even cooler games/books/movies/anything-else-that-I-can't-think-of-because-I'm-doing-an-evil-romance-on-my-NWN-module.-Do-you-have-any-idea-how-hard-it-is-to-make-an-evil-lady-that-likes-serving-evil-sound-romantic?
Existentialism was an example, not related to the "infinite universes", or "multiverse" philosophy. And I didn't say SW was a multiverse -- I said you can't rule it out because it has never even been discussed (and probably never will :D ).
I know you subscribe to the traditional Force definition, as first espoused in the OT: a simple, one-dimensional force (small "f"). You don't have to keep re-iterating that. I got it. The first time.
But, if we are to believe what Kreia / Atris in KotOR2, for arguments sake, then we must try to elucidate the NEW description of The Force and the universe/multiverse it requires to exist. As long as this new description doesn't contradict established SW laws, then it is acceptable. And as no specifics were discussed in the OT, we can safely create any construct without fear of contradiction! :D
-
Other: Me.
I can knock together a couple of JPegs sandwiched between a few (hundred) pages of dialogue that you read through pressing "Next". And I'll do it for the lowest bid, AND I'll do it in less than twelve months.
-
...
NT: Scientology is really popular in Hollywood, so Lucas decides to steal parts of their ridiculous theology to "flesh out" Forceology.
Medichlorianes (sp?) = Thetans
More to come...
AFAIK Scientology is popular amongst the celebrities due to the socialogical rigor imposed on the laity: no franternising! -- nothing to do with the theological components.
It doesn't surprise me that Midichlorians (such a lame idea) are similar to Thetans.
Isn't the whole doctrine of Scientology based on the theory that the population of the Earth are decendants of a penal colony from the outlawed members of some distant civilization, or some such nonsense?
-
6. Finally, we were discussing the seismic shift of The Force being a force (small "f") versus this new concept of The Force having a Will, heralded by Kreia in KotOR2 (and I think our PC is told about it by Atris, just before the final sequences).
If you have an opinion on that, then let's hear it. Thank you.
I'll start with whats on topic. To your knowledge, is KOTOR 2 considered canonical (sp?) by Lucas? I honestly don't know. It seems that The Force changed drastically with the new trilogy. I don't think the OT made any mention of "the will of The Force, did it? I guess I'm a little confused as to what Lucas actually thinks the force is.
Are you familiar with Scientology and their beliefs? If so, do you see a similarity between their understanding of Thetans and your opinion of how a "will of The Force" would operate? Just curious.
Is KotOR2 canonical?
I would have to assume it has to be. I believe the autheticity becomes less certain as you include material authored further from the source (a bit like the Bible ... sorry, couldn't resist).
Yep, AFAIK in the OT The Force was just a cosmic force (small "f"). A lot changed in the new trilogy -- Ninja and occidental (single-handed/dual-wielding) combat styles -- and the identification of the genetic component of Force Sensitives(midichlorines -- a very bad idea IMO, what's to stop a Kamino from genetically engineering a "super-chosen-one"?). And yes, I would tend to agree it does appear that Lucas has -- erm -- "improved" his definition of The Force.
I am only modestly familiar with the Scientology "religion". I have read a few L. Ron Hubbard novels (and a devotee once tried to psycho-analyse and conscript me into the cult). I can tell you that Hubbard hated Psychologists and co-opted a lot of their techniques to profile people and give them what they wanted as a religious experience. I also know that the "Holy Scriptures" are copyright and not for general discussion in the public domain, because of the court case made famous on the internet a few years ago between the Church and a disgruntled member. (What have they got to hide?)
So, no, I don't know about Thetans. Do you?
-
Yeah they don't conflict at all....
and I do read the bible....apparently you read too much of your "proof" off the internet because I don't know where you read they were written in Latin....
it was Greek.
Anything else, I think FaramirK hit the nail on the head, and you my friend (Metadigital) have been OWNED....
you should read the bible and not the theories that state the falsities of the bible...and you might learn something
Man you are incredibly childish.
1. I use internet hyperlinks to illustrate points because it is a little difficult to hyperlink the King James Bible. I, too, have read the Bible and completed many years of theological and philosophical studies (including at university level). I didn't think I'd have to display my credentials to have a philosophical debate about the ontological underpinnings of Star Wars, and nor would I expect others to do so, but I have to wonder what study you have completed, based on your suppositions and apparent grasp of logic, English and debating skills.
2. Attempting to gang up on me, saying "Yeah, What he said," doesn't intimidate me. Get a brain and join the debate, or stop embarrassing yourself and keep quiet.
3. To aid your reading comprehension, let me remind you that FaramirK just agreed with me that one of the earliest Gospel records was nearly a century after the stated events. And, of course this is all tangential to my original point, which was that very few of the audience could actually read first hand what the scriptures said, because it was in a foreign language and based on a idealised re-creation of the actual events. Not that many medieval europeans were conversant in ancient Greek, even if they had access to the Dead Sea Scrolls that were discovered in the early 20th Century. And as for the Gospels being written in Latin, the Roman Catholic Bible was latin until 1968. Oh, btw, you're forgeting the Qumran Library, which was written in Ancient Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic between 300-68BCE, which is a little more relevant to our Old Testament discussion.
4. Now, the two creation myths in Genesis. The first is given in Genesis 1: 1-2:4 while the second is given in Genesis 2: 4-24.
These two stories are actually different (mutually exclusive accounts). According to the first creation story the whole universe was made in six days, while on the seventh day, God rested. The table below gives the order of creation as described in those verses:
Day Relevant Verses Things Created
One Genesis 1:1-5 Light
Two Genesis 1:6-8
-
"Muslims are included in the Abrahamic faiths, so I am happy to use this instead of the term Judeo-Christian"
I'm glad you are happy to correct your mistake.
I am accommodating your petty and pedicular attitude. If you bothered to follow the link, you would see that "Judeo-Christian" has been used by theologians to describe the Abrahamic faiths, in addition to the term "Abrahamic Faiths", but -- ironically -- various hard-line right wing conservative Christians have tried to sabotage all talk of commonalities between the faiths as pandering to Islamic fundamentalism. (Which, I believe is exactly opposite what you said.)
"I suppose you'll argue that God created the world in seven days, too."There are many views concerning the creation of the world, but I was unaware of a "seven-day creation" view. Perhaps you mean the "Six-day creation view? I wonder if you're out of your depth in regards to this topic? I'll just assume it was a typo...
"Don't embarrass us all by foisting your ignorance on us and calling it logical argument."
Ok, I won't.
...I haven't so far, why would you assume I was about to?The seven day cycle includes the rest day. Shorthand. So I didn't have to go into this level of detail. Call it a Six Day Creation and One Rest Day if you want. Or are you arguing that there were Six Days of Cretion and then an indeterminate period of days? No, I thought not. So it's a seven day cycle: the week. An analogy for the people to follow in the daily lives. I don't generally talk about the Six Day week, but maybe you do. /sarcasm
Then again, you were arguing that Exodus was actually based on a historical event. (I'll put to the side that you were nit picking a subject that wasn't central to the thread because you had nothing to say about it.) Well, the approximate time the story was written, if you cross reference with Egyption political history, is about 1500BCE. As I stated briefly, a migration of tens of thousands of people across the desert would have left evidence that would still be visible today. (There is evidence from before this time in the same geographical area, from smaller groups people. Things like the remains of campfires.) There is no evidence to support the actual, physical migration. And as I have explained, the metaphor of Exodus was to give the people a contrast of why monotheism was better than the polytheism practised up until that point. Can you follow the analogy, or would you like me to explain it again for you?
"Suffice it to say, based on your posts thus far, I don't think you know enough about it to debate me."
Well, based on your numerous misconceptions, I'd be inclined to think the same of you.I was actually thinking English wasn't your first language, and that I should have cut you a bit more slack. I see, in fact, that you are just immature -- "I know you are, but what am I?" -- great comeback.
What, exactly, are my misconceptions?
I was referring to your seemingly endless re-iteration of the same question, even though I had explained it many times over. Remeber the whole Kreia thinking The Force had a Will. Remeber I eventually had to paste the quote that had been pasted three times, with a special highlight so that you could see what the thread was about. That misconception.
You stopped arguing with religious zealots on the internet almost two decades ago? Like, in the mid-late 80's? Well, you have me beat there, I did't even start using the internet until the early 90's...I doubt you'd find me a pushover though, I've been studying Religion as long as you've been going cold-turkey on Religious e-debates..."
"
Couldn't resist...Yes, the mid-eighties. When I was in University. Don't be foolish. I said I stopped arguing, not that I stopped thinking. I didn't go cold-turkey, I merely gave up trying to argue hypothesis-based-on-fact science with people who argued belief-based religion. I have been reading and talking and living since then, and part of my general discourse is philosphical.
It is also common netiquette to not use cheap mockery in debates. I think you've been out of practise for almost two decades.And as I said, I did read the thread.
And, no, I won't ridicule you with cheap mockery -- what I write may be cruel, but its true. If this thread is an example of your reading comprehension, then I would imagine you have many more years of study before you pass for literate in English.
-
One thing I've never understood about the debate of the world's creation....if any of you really studied the matter you'd know that science, in the form that we practice it today, was originally created to prove the existance of a God in the world, and over the years scientists have changed sides (so to say) to do everything to prove there is no God....ironic? yes.
My question is why do people take the 6 days 7th for rest theory so literal when the bible has many metaphors and etc.
7 days could have been millions of years.....I think it's used as a 7 step analogy....
and he could have created all of the things he did with a big bang, the bible never has described any process in detail.....
I just don't understand why some people are so against the fact that maybe both theories are correct...we evolved as a species over a very long time, and the universe was created by a big bang, all at the handy work of one God....
just a thought
Edit: sorry I just had to get in this discussion haha, don't mean to derail anything but I think it's too late to save this topic anyway
No, in fact if you read the Bible, you will see that there are in fact two (conflicting) versions of the creation myth. These stories are oral traditions meant to convey the collective wisdom of the Jewish people, covering such things as why women are subordinate to men, and why all creation is for man's discretionary use.
To try to combine this with currently accepted Hubble theory of the Big Bang is ... brave .. but ultimately pointless. Just accept them as doing two different jobs: you don't use a map to to remember a friends birthday.
Conservatives take it literally because of trust. If they read and accept what has been accepted since, say the King James Bible (17th Century), then they don't have to worry about someone they don't know interpreting it for them. Many other people are happy to have another person's interpretation, some to their detriment (you are probably too young to remember the Jonestown tragedy.)
Of course this logic is more than a little flawed, if only because the Gospels were written between 100-300 CE, and then edited in the Nicene Council (around 4th Century CE). They were written in Latin, and it wsn't until the episcopal churches that the Bible was translated into the common English tongue, so that everyone could hear the transcript for themselves.
And finally, yes it is ironic that Science and Religion are apposed, currently; they did indeed stem from the same root: the quest to understand our world. Science deals with the How?, and religion deals with the Why?, and whenever Science cannot answer a How? question, religious leaders pipe up and say "Ah! You cannot explain the mind of God."
<_<
-
Well thanks for the replies, I havn't finished the game yet and i'm 55 hours throuhg it!
I wasn't aware you could have diffenerent NPC's in the game, maybe being DS would limmit those choices anyway....
How come you can never seem to influence Kreia enough to change her alignment?
i"ve turned Handmaiden into a DS guardian but when do I get to do this for Atton, Bao Dur?
... Keep playing.
-
Can we make Darth Vader into a female?
Well, it is entirely possible that he might not be comfortable as a male, and in fact have always felt he was a woman trapped in a man's body. (It is not very probable considering his actions, however.) For those of your statistically minded, approximately 1 in 1000 people are born feeling similarly.
Of course, she would have to change her name to Darth Moeder, but that sounds like Murder, which would fly ...
Vader/Moeder: Obi-wan never told you what happened to your father.
Luke: He told me enough! He told me you killed him!
Vader/Moeder: No, Luke ... I was your father!
Luke: That's not true! That's impossible!
Vader/Moeder: I had the surgery a few years ago, thanks to my Sugar Daddy, Palpatine.
Luke: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
Destiny can't be permanent. It may have certain TIMES in it that something needs done, but this is NEVER set in stone, until AFTER it happens. Then, you're like "Oh, dude. Was that my destiny? Or, if I had eaten pancakes instead of my dad's poisoned Fruit Loops, would I have lived to become the Sith Lord? Or, what if I decided to go over and kill the slaves again? Or, what if I had..." You get the idea. There are WAY too many choices for the Force to have a will. All it does is seek some equilibriam between all of them, which is what EVERYTHING seeks, in its own right.
As I have said MANY times before, the Force is just a HUGE look at the Will of Life Itself.
Again, just because that is your philosophical standpoint doesn't mean all others are invalid. (Just because something is suppositious doesn't mean its supposititious!
" )As I have pointed out earlier, for example, there are philosophies such that:
1. There are an infinite number of universes where each and every alternative to each and every single decision in the great grand-daddy universal timeline are played out. Every decision tree has its own universe. And Yes, that's a lot of universes. Yes, we're stuck in this universe and we can't prove the existence of other universes (directly, yet). That's why there are infinite universes in this philosophical conception*.
2. An Existentialist, for example, believes she is the only real being in the universe. Everything else -- every person she meets, every sensation she feels, every argument she has -- everything else is an illusion. (It's always entertaining to see two Existentialists at a party trying to work out who is the figment of whose imagination.
)So, you see, even if I don't believe either of these philosophies, I must not discount them out of hand -- because it is impossible to do so without proof. And philosophy is the discussion of those things that have no proof.
Okay? Right.
*For example, suppose you invent a time machine.
For the sake of demonstration, you go back in time and kill your grandfather before he has children. Then you would never exist and subsequently invent your time machine and go back and kill your grandfather ... But, if when you travel back in time you travel to an "adjacent" universe, which is identical in every way to the universe you have come from, except that you have appeared in the past, then you can safely kill your grandfather in this new universe and still exist in this universe to create the time machine and go back to kill him again. The time line is unbroken. Paradox averted. Q.E.D.
-
Yes. She says so herself, FaramirK.
(Revelation scene btwn Desciple and Kreia, w/ out specific dialogue)
Disciple sees the ripples in the Force, and their effects.
Kreia asks what he sees, and he says that he says the Death of all Life
Kreia says that that alone would be worthless. But, it is necessary to show the Jedi Masters the 'errors of their ways'.
If somebody can drag up that convo, it would be much appreciated.
Not quite.
The threat to all life is Darth Nihilis, who is devouring life to feed his needs, which in turn will result in all life being destroyed.
Kreia wants to kill The Force by killing the Exile (the wound in the Force) at Malachor V (the site which begat said wound).
Hence my musings the bold new story based on Kreia being the Prophet for the new Anti-Force-Sensitives: those who support Free Will, and are sworn enemies of The Force (The Great Tyrant) and consequently all Force Sensitives (Jedi and Sith).
:D
-
What made Judaism, and consequently Christianity and Islam (whose followers are all "Sons of Abraham", and hence collectively known as Judeo-Christian)
Islam is not, and does not claim to be Judeo-Christian. It claims it is the only accurate account of "what really happened", and claims superiority over the two older, well established faiths. It is a curious claim indeed. While the NT builds upon the OT, the Qu'ran contradicts both.
*Incidentally, this is what the story of Exodus chronicles. The people of Israel escaping from the incarceration of Egypt and their gods, follow the pillar that is the One God. God is not bound to a single geographical point or bounded by any worldly consraints. This exodus is a metaphor, as there is no evidence for an actual mass migration of people through the desert (the remnants of which would still be visible today, as the area has been a desert for the intervening millennia).Neither Exodus or any other part of the bible suggests that The Exodus was a metaphor, rather recording it as a historical fact. Either the Exodus actually happened, or the Bible is a flawed document.
Muslims are included in the Abrahamic faiths, so I am happy to use this instead of the term Judeo-Christian.
Re: Exodus. Oh dear, I wondered if I'd get a response to this -- I nearly didn't post it. Oh well, here we go:
Your literal interpretation of scripture is your business, but I certainly don't need to regard the Old Testament / Torah as an historical document to extract the fascinating information it contains. (I suppose you'll argue that God created the world in seven days, too. Or that every Christian must believe that is so. This is commonly called a literal or conservative view; there are also progressive Christians -- and Jews, for that matter. Don't embarrass us all by foisting your ignorance on us and calling it logical argument.)
" Anyway, I don't really want to start a new debate on the claims of the Abrahamic religions in general, and Christianity in particular. Suffice it to say, based on your posts thus far, I don't think you know enough about it to debate me. So, if you must, take it offline: send me a PM if you want to discuss these theologies. (It's only fair to warn you that I gave up arguing with religious zealots on the internet almost two decades ago as they were too easy to defeat.)
As for what Kreia says, have you not bothered to read this thread? If you look back less than eight posts and you will see a direct quote that we are discussing. Here, for your benefit, I'll repeat it:
"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost.But in you... I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me.You are beautiful to me, exile. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied. I use it as I would use a poison, and in the hopes of understanding it, I will learn the way to kill it.But perhaps these are the excuses of an old woman who has grown to rely on a thing she despises."
There, see? The predicate of the first sentence? So, taking this as my cue, I have been musing on the theological shift engendered by this statement. I was under the impression that everyone here was, too.
It is generally accepted netiquette to read through the thread before posting, which it seems that you haven't done. I welcome constructive philospohical discussion.
-
And who the heck is Julie Andrews?
Perhaps you are more familiar with Maria Von Trapp from the Sound of Music?
-
...
However, I don't see how you can draw any comparison between The Force seeking to keep a balance between dark and light and the theological claims of either Judaism or Christianity.
The Force is based on what George Lucas believes about good and evil, not Christianity, even though his view may have been based on his own vague understanding of the pseudo-christian values he grew up with.
To say that the "The Force is Judeo-Christian", is not true.
Maybe I misunderstood your argument, if so, please explain.
Yep, you're forgeting something: I'm incorporating the new information given to us by Kreia in KotOR2, inasmuch as she believes that The Force has a Will of its own.
As I have stated earlier, This makes The Force a totally different ontological entity than what we have been led to believe until now. It is a fundamental shift in how we understand this magical phenomena.
So, either:
The Force has no will, and is just a co-efficient of the alignment of the particular FS (and some other integral part of them -- seemingly the midichlorians, so that Darth Vader had a stronger co-efficient of The Force than, say Jabba The Hutt, even though they may have been of a similar alignment -- but just ignore this bit for the sake of simplicity). This is the traditionally accepted ("canonical") interpretation of The Force. Equivalent in theology to, say, Shintoism. (Remember, Lucas has said he based the Jedi on the Samurai, who were mainly Shinto and Confucian. If you add Ninja influences -- perhaps like the Sith in the prequels -- then we can include Buddhism, because this is what most Ninja subscribed to.)
Or, if the Force has a Will of its own -- in that it actively shapes events in the universe according to its own desired design -- then this is equivalent to a godhead (similar to the Judeo-Christian god). What made Judaism, and consequently Christianity and Islam (whose followers are all "Sons of Abraham", and hence collectively known as Judeo-Christian) new and unique in the pantheon of ancient gods and goddesses is that they all believe in One God*, who is Everywhere and Everywhen. (Again, for simplicity, ignore the Christian Trinity, or confine your thoughts to God the Father.) Previously gods were restricted to geographical or meteorological phenomena (Poseidon is God of the Sea and Earthquakes; Zeus is God of the Sky, Isis Goddess of Beauty and Life (responsible for flooding of the Nile plains), etc).
So, when I refer to a Judeo-Christian godhead, I am not necessarily saying LucasArts were saying The Force is Alla, Jesus Christ or Yahveh, merely that they are equating it with a single, omni-present (assumedly omnipowerful and omniscient) God. For simplicity I probably should just have used the term Monotheism.
In fact, as I have mentioned elsewhere, it would be easier to argue that The Force was in fact Dark in nature, rather than Light. It would remove the constraint that causes the Epicurean Paradox, namely that God is Good. That is to say: if, for argument's sake, we said The Force was a malevolent God, it would explain why Evil exists in this world (and, conversely, why Good exists, being merely to create more opportunity to spread misery and evil farther and over longer periods).
Which definitely would not be the same as saying The Force is God! :D
*Incidentally, this is what the story of Exodus chronicles. The people of Israel escaping from the incarceration of Egypt and their gods, follow the pillar that is the One God. God is not bound to a single geographical point or bounded by any worldly consraints. This exodus is a metaphor, as there is no evidence for an actual mass migration of people through the desert (the remnants of which would still be visible today, as the area has been a desert for the intervening millennia).
-
Agreed with Luke. Disagreed with the "not sociable" part.
"Unreasoning passion is the province of darkness," Vergere said. "But an understood emotion is not unreasoning. That is why the route to mastery is through self-knowledge." Her tilted eyes widened. "It
-
I always thought of the force as a morally neutral power source that anyone could "tap in to" to further own aims, whether selfless or selfish.
I think the whole idea is fundamentally flawed , because if the Force is morally neutral, why would it seek a balance between the dark and light side? If you could choose to strive for good, or for a balance of good and evil, what would you choose?
For example, if your town was home home to a local authority which attempted to keep the peace and the Mafia, would you want a balance between both, or to eradicate the group causing suffering?
I never really thought of either side as wanting a balance as much as wanting to destroy the other. What great intelligence is orchastrating the return to light in times of darkness, or the encroaching darkness in times of light? The Medichlorians(sp?) ? Or is it really just an ammunition dump avaliable to either side?
Interesting stuff.
I think you are confused. It is quite feasible to have a force (small "f") like gravity, that always seeks balance.
Gravity seeks to attract bodies together according to their mass and the inverse of the square of their distance apart, and the further apart the longer the the acceleration acts upon the bodies, so the more violent the force that acts on the bodies. So, too, The Force (capital "F") could act similarly, violently pulling the extreme Dark and Light FSs back to the middle, and balance.
It is also quite plausible (although it doesn't adhere to Occham's Razor
" ) to have a godhead, a super-being orchestrating galactic events for purposes only known to the Alpha & Omega of creation.By giving The Force a Will, LucasArts in KotOR2 is basically re-defining a physical system we are familiar with from the movies as a theological one. The Force is not Newtonian (or even Shinto/Confuscian/Budhist), it's Judeo-Christian.
But I'm not an expert on oriental religions (even though I have studied Confuscianism), so if anyone knows about Shintoism and Budhism such that it might shed some more light on this, I would be pleased to hear from them.
Because the teachings of Budha might reveal a higher purpose to the universe, one that predicates illusory free will (because as I understand it, a Budhist believes that the world we live in is an illusion, just a "testing ground" for the real afterlife).
-
Thanks for the insightful response. I think I'll dump Kreia now that I've exhausted everything she has to offer.
What about the lightsaber question, will I get enough to have two for myself and get Visas at least one?
You will certainly have a surfeit of lightsabers soon enough. Until then you have to use blades and blasters.
-
How on earth did Atris arrive at the top of the hierarchy anyway? How old was she?
She was the Jedi Archivist, could it be that she had been using Sith Holocrons for a long time and no one else onthe council could sense it?
It isn't particularly clear how old Atris is in the game. Perhaps she isn't as young as you seem to be assuming; she could quite easily be the equivalent of fifty years old (because age is a meaningless term if you are trying to use Earth references to a Galaxy a long, long way away far, far in the distant past). How old does Julie Andrews look, for crying out loud?
What isn't clear is why her appearance isn't in keeping with the thematic Dark Side palour; no foetid, decaying skin for her: perhaps she has a very effective beauty routine. Boy, I bet L'Oreal would pay a lot for that ... :D
-
I'd wait until the patch comes out and the price goes down a bit.
I'd wait for the team to finish the omitted content mod.
" -
This is my first time playing through and I was wondering which NPCs would be the best to play through with.
I was planning to play with Kreia and Atton. But after reading through the guide (up to where I am) I found out that I've exhausted all the dialogues with Kreia and got every bonus she could give me and her influence won't matter anymore, so I was thinking about dumping her.
Im on my second planter now, Nar Shaada, after going to Dantoine first.
Is Visas a good choice? And will I get enough lightsabers to dual weild myself and to give to her? Im also playing as Light and she's dark, will it be a good idea to play with her?
The game has been deliberately designed to encourage you to play it through several times with the different NPCs. Part of the fun of role play is trying out a course of action to see where it leads -- sometimes to surprisingly interesting scenarios.
Don't worry too much about the NPCs alignment (Dark or Light) and its agreement with your avatar: the only impact on the game will be whether you choose to act in such a way as to influence them. For example, a light side PC will have to play with a certain Dark Side warrior on a certain forest moon, regardless of the fact that they would more likely not.
If it helps, think of the Dark Side as selfishness, rather than sadism, so that Dark Side NPCs are quite happy to collude with the Light Side when -- and for as long as -- it suits their own interests.
-
I don't really want to get into a flame war, which it seems this post is aiming at
The "flame" line was a nod to The Great Phantom who mentioned that it's almost strange that no horde of fanatics has yet attempted to conquer this thread as so often happens. I thought what I posted would make for splendid target-practive indeed for such people, is all.
Yep, quite pleased there aren't the usual digressions into playground banter about who did what to whom. I was just trying to disarm the ticking bomb, is all.
the immaculate conception is a standard plot device used to [...]Why, sure. What I was trying to get at is: I guess the Force is to blame for Shmi's pregnancy. As in, it was the will of the Force. That kind of direction.
Ahh, okay, point taken and I concur that it certainly shows an active, willful Force.
"Serving the Force" might just be the terminology for living -- and enforcing the rules for others in the society -- according to the generally accepted code of behaviours that are the most sociologically sound -- to use a humanist frame of reference -- like the ten commands of the Old Testament / Torah, or the two commandments of the Gospels. It doesn't really tell us anymore about our dilemma of the Force having a Will (or in fact two distinct wills: Dark and Light).["Certainly" not two distinct wills. The Force is one. *New flame target.*]
You're right, of course. I think Luke didn't mean anything much beyond "do what would be in keeping with the Force" an-- ugh. Well. Aren't the Ten Commandments, like, the will of God? ^_^' Anyway, this is terrible to really discuss and more like "guessing."
Guess: The Force, like God, would be most delighted if everything would be just fine. In balance and all that. Terribly generalized, but eh. I think that's a pretty safe guess, even. But maybe not. Moreover, the Force, like God and what-have-you, can also at times apart from guiding things if listened/allowed to, go so far as to actually directly influence or do something.
"Certainly" a very capricious, confused, and even schizophrenic will.
I say again: What if Kreia was right?
"It is said that the Force has a will, it has a destiny for us all. I wield it, but it uses us all, and that is abhorrent to me. Because I hate the Force. I hate that it seems to have a will, that it would control us to achieve some measure of balance, when countless lives are lost.But in you... I see the potential to see the Force die, to turn away from its will. And that is what pleases me.You are beautiful to me, exile. A dead spot in the Force, an emptiness in which its will might be denied. I use it as I would use a poison, and in the hopes of understanding it, I will learn the way to kill it.But perhaps these are the excuses of an old woman who has grown to rely on a thing she despises."
^Reading that, I think she does not say "I found out the Force has a will" or something like that. She says "It is said that the Force has a will" as if it is something commonly heard or accapted or often said and she with all her experiences believes it as well.
What sets her apart from these others and what your question goes at I guess is that she equals Will of the Force = No Choice. =(
That, I don't believe. Which doesn't have to mean anything, of course.
After Nietzsche: There is no such thing as free will. There is also no such thing as unfree will. There is only strong will, and weak will.
Well, it seems to me that Kreia is rebelling against The Force because it compells the universe and all her inhabitants to assist in its strategy (which presumably is a journey of self-discovery and self-actualisation, if such a concept can be applied to a super-being, or indeed we may personify a god with such mundane psychological needs
" ).Interesting quote from Nietzche. If I understand it aright, he is proposing a chaotic non-deterministic universe. One of his contemporaries, however, did not subscribe to this philosophy. Jung believed in synchronicity, which states that events are connected not just by cause-and-effect (as Neitzche seems to be saying), but by meaning -- i.e. "meaningful coincidences". Y'know, how when you haven't thought of a distant friend or family member for years and suddenly they call you ...
Kreia might yet be revered as the first to see the yoke about the universe; the one who woke up to the true fate of the universe and struck the first blow of emancipation.
It makes for a terrific, bold new plot: the Anti-Jedi who do battle against The Great Tyrant (a.k.a The Force). It would mean new powers, new combat and the total annihilation of all Force Sensitives ... (until the Force recovers in about 4000 years' time ...)
-
Good that enlightened New Jedi Order led by wise Luke, resigned from this strange social engineering. 80% of New Jedi Knights are guys who joined the ranks between 16-30 year of their lives. And they indeed proved that they are as good as those prequel products of artificial non-family upbringing.
Yeah, it's strange that family ties are frowned upon, yet the bonds of friendship are okay (like for Luke in ESB between Han, Leia -- he didn't know she was family then -- when he risked his Light Side training and therefore the fate of the Galaxy for two people, a walking carpet and some scrap metal).
Maybe Jedi should not be sociable: more monastic and less chatty. But then what are they defending? If the Jedi order is the semiotic equivalent to the Samurai, then it should be derived from Shintoism/Confuscianism, so: one of its central tenets would be the pre-eminence of the family in general and filial piety in particular. So they are abrogating their own filial piety to defend everyone elses? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, like Roman Catholic priests not being able to marry.
Methinks Luke had the right idea, let the Jedi live a life that is an example to others.
-
Besides, women who fall for jackasses are stupid. Acting normal, or perhaps, shall we say not scaring them, usually yields the women. Women who need to be 'thrown off balance' aren't you usually worth dating in the long run.
I'm not going to give you a speech on this subject, but women usually find being thrown off-balance at least intriging. And getting their attention is half of the job. What I do know is that playing the nice guy will get you nowhere. Nowere near the bedroom, that is.
Also, don't mistake being c0cky and funny with being a f*ckhead. Women LOVE self-confidence.
1) Mighty Republic undermined by whining poloticians2) Peaceful leadership ousted by "New, Exciting Hardliner "Hawks"
3) Small-scale skirmish manipulated to start a vast war
4) Hawks show real face, destroy democracy and conquer everyone.
What role does Jar Jar Binks exactly play in all of that?
Bush....
...and I'm from America!
Well, to be serious, Jar Jar was an amalgam: principally a character that the younger audience could identify with (like the foold for Shakespeare -- don't think Lucas isn't above comparing himself favourably with WS: check out the rhyming couplets to end the scenes in the prequels
). He represents the well-meanign-but-ultimately-gullible general public. Those people that half listen to politics, but aren't interested enough to think long and hard about it, and who make well-meaning choices that can end up disasterously ("The road to Hell is paved with good intentions", and all that). It's part of the cautionary tale, the moral of the story.My main peeve with Jar Jar is Lucas made him sound like a "negro" from the patronising early Hollywood films, or a charicature on the Black and White Minstrels. I keep waiting fro him to drop down on one knee and sing "Mammeee / How I love ya / how I love ya ...".
Talk about insulting...
" 
Well, based on your numerous misconceptions, I'd be inclined to think the same of you.
"
Couldn't resist...
" )
)
KOTOR2 urban myths
in Star Wars: General Discussion
Posted
Ditto.
I have no problem with subtle, complex or even hidden story components or truculent NPCs that have to be handled in careful ways to extract the most information from them (cf. that FPS where you torture villians with bandsaws to obtain information .... yeah, very compelling -- NOT).
The problem was the ending: assuming it was due to the publishing deadline (and evidence seems to suggest this is the best assessment), a few more months to add the omitted material (found on the game discs) would have made all the difference.
I really lost interest in replaying the game due to the long, linear beginning and end (which also suffered from quite poor direction). Then all the subtlies and complexities would have been a joy to find. (w00t)
Contrary to some peoples' assertions on these boards, I thought KotOR (the original) was a brilliant game (one of the best); only the limited scope of the game eventually exhausted the replayability when I was beginning to know each and every dialogue tree and corresponding responses! I was waiting for the promised new, larger scope of KotOR2 to allow me to explore and replay and replay some more. :D
What we got was not up to the task. And it so easily could have been.
Which is the shame of it all.