revan, fall or sacrifice?

[drsmartazze]

i encountered a line of dialogue with kreia and

 

Spoliers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

she said she believed that revan never really fell but sacrificed himself to hold back a greater evil. does anyone agree with that statement?

[Oberon]

I'd say he sacrificed himself to hold back the greater evil, but than became consumed by the darkside leading to the war against the Jedi. I think Kreia was only half telling the truth there.

[Doright]

I agree. I got the same idea. But then I think that may be dependent on if you said Revan was LS or DS in the beginning.

 

if you say Revan was LS then I think the game may assume Revan was an all around good guy/gal who just got in over his head but if you say you played KOTOR I as a total dark sider then they assume your revan was DS all the way.

 

I'll have to test that theory a bit but maybe someone with more experence with playing DS will have a better idea.

[TentamusDarkblade]

the impression i got was that Revan never fell, only did what was needed to prepare the galaxy for the coming true battle.

 

The Mandalorian war opened revan's eyes to how vulnerable the republic was and from there set out to forge the galaxy into something that could survive the coming sith empire.

 

The players conversations with Kriea remark about it, as do conversations with Goto and other flavor bits you pick up here and there.

 

Revan set alot of things in motion and i don't think we'll know the full extent of what that was until the next game.

[Malhavok]

I think it is entirely possible that Revan did both. He did fall to the Dark Side, that much is evident because afterall he was the Dark Lord of Sith. That fact is not debatable

 

However, the question is did he choose to fall? If he did, then it could be construed as a sacrifice.

 

Think of it this way: Many of the Villains we see in games these days are much like Malak from KOTOR-1, that is, brutish thugs consumed only with power. They are also very short sighted and quite possible inept at doing anything with their power once they have crushed all their enemies. That doesn't mean that all villains have to be that way.

 

A Villain has a home too right? To the Dark Revan perhaps the Republic is his home then? Sure he wants to run it, but only because he knows that he alone has what it takes to do the job right. Only he can see the dangers that lay ahead and only he can prepare the Republic for what it will take to be victorious. Perhaps the reason for Revans fall wasn't a thirst for power exactly, but extreme arrogance?

 

Mandalore/Canderous sort of hits on this when he asks you what it would have been like if the Mandalorians had won the war. That is, would the Republic actually be better off or worse off? He has a persuasive argument that the Republic would have been stronger.... and indeed, if Revan had conquered the Republic, then perhaps it would have been even stronger still. An Evil ruler can still be a good ruler, it depends mostly on the thrust of his evil. For Darth Revan it would have been his desire to do anything and sacrifice anything for the sake of 'saving the republic'. That kind of ruthlessness is a type of evil no doubt, however it is also a type of evil that would probably have little to no effect on the lives of the trillians of inhabitants of the Republic. Hence, its entirely possible that a Darth Revan would have been a mostly benevolent ruler of his galactic dominion.

 

Wierd huh?

[Oberon]

I am not exactuly sure where you are coming from when you say an evil ruler can be a good ruler. As a Sith revan was killing everyone who wouldn't convert to his cause, and he wasn't usually quick about it. I don't quite see how the killing of innocent people is something that wouldn't effect the people in the galaxy, considering the people being killed are part of the galaxy. Of course I still don't get how ANY evil ruler can be a good ruler. You can sacrifice alot without being considered evil, but he went a little beyond that.

[Malhavok]

I am not exactuly sure where you are coming from when you say an evil ruler can be a good ruler. As a Sith revan was killing everyone who wouldn't convert to his cause, and he wasn't usually quick about it. I don't quite see how the killing of innocent people is something that wouldn't effect the people in the galaxy, considering the people being killed are part of the galaxy. Of course I still don't get how ANY evil ruler can be a good ruler. You can sacrifice alot without being considered evil, but he went a little beyond that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well frankly it comes down to what you would consider a 'good' or 'bad' ruler. I think GO-TO being an artificial intelligence has the perfect view on this matter. To him it matters not if the Sith or the Jedi are victorious, he only cares that the Republic is stable. It's quite obvious that the Sith are capable of running an effective government. Heck during the original Star Wars trilogy the Sith are running the Empire (former Republic) and doing a pretty good job of it. The thing that makes them evil isn't because they are going around and murdering innocents all the time, its because they will go to any lengths to win. They have no moral limitations on what they will do to maintain power. Imagine if the Rebel alliance was gone from the original star wars movies and it was just the Empire. Would they have built the death star? What would be the need for it?

 

What do Sith and Jedi do when they are not fighting each other?

 

I think GO-TO had it right for the most part, the fighting between the Jedi and the Sith is a religious conflict. It matters not to him (or the majority of the sentients in the galaxy) who wins, only that one of them does so that the fighting stops.

 

You need to stop seeing things from the perspective of either the jedi or the sith and see them from the perspective of the normal 'non force sensitive' person. The ideology of the Sith isn't necessarily one that is going to impact the lives of people who are not force sensitive, they will just go merrily on their way. The only people who really care are the entrenched power bases (The Republic) and the Jedi who are ideologically opposed to the Sith.

[Oberon]

But the Sith are imperialists, thats the whole point. They don't stop their conquest and they constantly oppress, even if not always with blood shed. What you are saying is that an evil dictator doesn't have evil motivations until he commits genocide on everyone or something similar. Of course the Sith often do commit genocide. So what if the Republic wasn't around, well the Empire would continue the conquest of the universe and strip everyone of their freedoms and become the ultimate oppressive regime. What if Revan had come back to the Jedi after the Mandalorian War? What if he hadn't killed off most of the Jedi in the war with the Sith? He would have all the more force users to help him thats what. Lets look at that through the eyes of a non force user. If they knew the full truth, the Sith started the aggression, they would think the Sith were evil as well. Since everyone always blames it on the ones who start it. The only reason they think all force users are evil is because they do not know the difference between the Jedi and the Sith, they think that everyone who can wield the force is the same. You can say war would be over if the Sith conquer everything, but there never would have been a war in the first place without them and Revan leading them.

 

Which leads me to another point. When have the Jedi actually been the ones to agress against the Sith? I don't think they ever have. All the fighting that is cauesd is brought about because of them more or less, they were even the ones who told the Mandalorians to attack the republic.

[Malhavok]

But the Sith are imperialists, thats the whole point. They don't stop their conquest and they constantly oppress, even if not always with blood shed. What you are saying is that an evil dictator doesn't have evil motivations until he commits genocide on everyone. Of course the Sith often do commit genocide. So what if the Republic wasn't around, well the Empire would continue the conquest of the universe and strip everyone of their freedoms and become the ultimate oppressive regime.

 

Well ok, first off - Imperialism isn't always bad. It's not very politically correct to say, but on our own planet alot of good things have come about due to imperialism and colonialsim. The biggest obsticle to imperialsm is nationalism, check out Onderon in KOTOR-2. They are part of the glactic senate (under a queen no less, so its a monarchy even! talk about oppressive right??) and they're still not happy. It's not just the General who wants to break away, but a significant portion of the population feels the same way. Is the Republic oppressing the people of this planet? Probably not, but it doesn't matter to many of them. The entire situtation is relative to what people believe.

 

Also, if you're willing to buy into the concept of a benevolent monarchy, then I don't see why its such a far stretch to a benevolent empire. They are basically the same thing, just on a larger scale.

 

And another thing: What makes you think that the Sith want to commit genocide on everyone? Did Revan commit genocide on anyone but the Mandalorians who were attacking the Republic? Did he just go willy nilly blowing up planets for kicks? Even Palpatine from the original movies didn't do this, infact there were quite a few planets that seemed to be getting along just fine under his Empire. The entire conflict was essentially against a bunch of "rebels". Take the rebels out of the picture and I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been a lot of conflict in that galaxy.

 

Finally, as far as a dictator goes.. Honestly what is the difference in this universe of star wars between pledging your fealty to the 'good' queen of some backwater planet or the emperor of the galaxy. You're just trading one type of dictator for another, so essentially its just the same.

 

Lets look at that through the eyes of a non force user. If they knew the full truth, the Sith started the aggression, they would think the Sith were evil as well. Since everyone always blames it on the ones who start it. The only reason they think all force users are evil is because they do not know the difference between the Jedi and the Sith, they think that everyone who can wield the force is the same.

 

Well actually thats just your perspective of what evil is, in the game we play there are several people who know full well both sides of the story and still do not think that the Sith are evil and the Jedi are good. And frankly, I doubt very much that most people would care. In a galaxy that is inhabited by countless trillians of sentient life forms there is probably never more than a few thousand each of jedi or sith walking around. The vast, vast majority of the population is never going to personally run into one of these folks, yet they are going to constantly suffer as the result of their religious in-fighting.

 

And frankly I'm not convinced that there is some sort of Sith play-book laying around that states that if there are no Jedi around to fight that they must start randomly obliterating planets for kicks. If anything, the Sith are more likely to turn on each other due to their philisophical teachings. Infact, I'm not even sure they really care to actually rule the galaxy. It seems to me that its more of a means to an end, that is: accumulate as much power as you can so that you can eliminate your enemies.

 

Also, once you control everything why would you destroy it? Revan didn't randomly destroy things, infact in the game its commented on that he left quite a bit of the Republic infrastructure intact. And why wouldn't he? He wanted to rule the Republic, not destroy it.

 

Please don't take this as a slam, but I think you're idea that just because someone is evil or good means that they are going to be bad or good at running a government is kind of naive. Just take General Valktu from KOTOR-2 as an example. He's evil, he allied himself with the Sith, he's trying to ursurp the throne from the rightful ruler - but still, his reasons for doing it are two fold: Sure he wants the power of being the ruler, but he honestly believes that he can do a better job than Queen Talia - and a significant portion of the population of his planet agrees! Him and Colonel Tobin are actually patriots, even if they are power hungry. If you play the Dark side campaign through, then you get to help him betray the Sith because he realizes that owing his alleigence to them not only would hamper his future plans for Onderon but would be a bad thing for his people. The dude is definately evil, but even evil people occasionally care about their own civilizations

 

Heck on the Ravager at the end, you can convince Tobin to sacrifice himself to set off the bombs on the ship so that Onderon can be spared from Nihilus. There is no doubt that Tobin is 'evil' in the classical sense, yet still he would give his life for his nation. Does that mean he is both good and evil? I don't think so... I think it just shows that evil people can sometimes do something good.

 

There are definately different kinds of evil both in the game and in real life. Malak personifies a type of sociopathic evil that wants to cruelly destroy everything while Darth Revan personifies a strategic cunning evil that wants to control everything because he honestly thinks he's the best man for the job. In his mind what he is doing isn't evil, its actually good... and necessary to save the Republic.

 

And he may even be right o.O

[Oberon]

Okay, well... I will comment on this one last time. You make some good points. And its left up to someones perspectives and morals as to wether this is what they think.

 

I wasn't disagreeing that Revan wouldn't blow up planets at random. I think Sith in general are portrayed to be that way however, it is Star Wars after all... its based on the fight of good verses evil and its simplicity in that matter is what won it its original polularity. Anyways, people may think of it this way, or they may not.... lets look at Hitler, he thouht he was fit to rule the world... he killed and enslaved pretty much any one he thought he should and who got in the way. Was he fit to rule the world? I certainly don't think so... seems more kind of psychopathic to me. So thats the best explanation that I can come up with for why I thought Revan was consumed by the dark side in the end even though he was perhaps trying to keep the Republic strong, it was for his own purposes and certainly not for the good of the people like he would have first intended. Of course its left up for interpratation obviously. But, hearing Atton's story of Revan, I couldn't not think of Revan as an evil bloodthirsty villain before his mind swipe.

 

Another reason I think Revan was consumed is when Kreia says that the jedi council merely showed Revan what he truly was (that is if you say he was LS). This made me think that he had intended for good, but got sidetracked in the dark side. And lastly, i am of course bias in all this, since I prefer playing as LS and can't believe that Revan was truly evil enough to try to conquer the Republic in such a fashion because he honestly thought that they were for the best, and then go around helping people and sacrificing himself for the good of others in Kotor 1.

 

I really actually think its left up to if you say Revan is LS or DS after your explanation, they are clearly two different people. I would agree with your opinion 100% for a DS Revan.... but I am just going from my opinion for a LS Revan. Thats one of the things about the Kotor's that is so interesting, because you really are two different people depending on how you play it.