Kreia vs morality

[Cerebus]

I, for one, thought that Kreia was the most impressive character in the whole game - perhaps the only thing that makes it truly great in the end, despite its obvious flaws. The problem is that she challenges the concept of morals - a challenge that is a little too powerful for the fabric of the Star Wars universe, perhaps.

 

Of course, she is not the first to do it: Writers like Bernard Shaw and Nietzsche are the pioneers of this line of thought. However, both of them were fiercely set against romance (in the sense of "heroic tale"). And since Star Wars is perhaps THE romantic tale of our time, the attempt to mix it with Shavian anti-romanticism is risky indeed.

 

For example: Her argument in the bum affair is not really about the bum himself - she doesn't care about anyone except the Exile. She just tries to lead him away from Jedi (christian) morality. For her, the coming of the "Superman" is all that matters. And the "Superman" - in the Shavian/Nietzsche sense - must act without being constrained by conventional rules of conduct.

 

A point she should have considered, though, is that the Exile, being the strongest person around, could still solve everybodies problems - not out of charity, but because he would become even stronger by taking away the challenges presented to other people. In this sense, he would help himself by stealing other people's resources - and this, Kreia should approve of!

 

The game, however, doesn't truly allow for such a solution. We are forced to be either charitable or passive. The spectrum of possible actions does not go beyond romanticism, the binary ideal of beneficient Knight and cruel oppressor.

 

In the end, the whole experiment of mixing classic Star Wars romanticism with "modernist" anti-moralicism clearly fails: We want answers to the very interesting philosophical questions posed during the game, but none are given. Instead, Kreia, the powerful third party beyond Jedi-Morality and Sith-Cruelty, loses her identity and just becomes another Dark Lord and end-level boss.

 

That, for me, was the biggest disappointment, far beyond the nonexistence of some robot planet. But then again, the stakes were a little to high to expect to win.

[Master Dahvernas]

Good post.

 

This was my main contention with the storyline... That and a whole host of poorly executed plot points and other elements as well.

 

I completely agree that Kriea's "morality" just does not fit in with the SW universe and while I applaud Obsidian for trying... I think they may have gone too far in that the SW universe deals in absolutes for the most part and Kreia is pretty much the Gray that exists in between those two spectrums... But that is not what SW is really about to begin with. Hence, it seems completely out-of-place and like it is coming out of nowhere... Because it is to some degree.

 

I also think trying to tackle such a deep philosophical subject in a video game is the wrong media to do it in for the simple fact that while games can be smart (as gamers can), the primary purpose of a game... Even an RPG... Is to entertain first and foremost and "teach" or be thought provoking second (if at all).

 

I get the distinct impression the writer(s) reversed this either intentionally, or on accident and as a result, it just comes off as confusing and even pretentious at certain points because of the bad execution as well.

[Tanuvein]

I, for one, thought that Kreia was the most impressive character in the whole game - perhaps the only thing that makes it truly great in the end, despite its obvious flaws. The problem is that she challenges the concept of morals - a challenge that is a little too powerful for the fabric of the Star Wars universe, perhaps.

 

Of course, she is not the first to do it: Writers like Bernard Shaw and Nietzsche are the pioneers of this line of thought. However, both of them were fiercely set against romance (in the sense of "heroic tale"). And since Star Wars is perhaps THE romantic tale of our time, the attempt to mix it with Shavian anti-romanticism is risky indeed.

 

For example: Her argument in the bum affair is not really about the bum himself - she doesn't care about anyone except the Exile. She just tries to lead him away from Jedi (christian) morality. For her, the coming of the "Superman" is all that matters. And the "Superman" - in the Shavian/Nietzsche sense -  must act without being constrained by conventional rules of conduct.

 

A point she should have considered, though, is that the Exile, being the strongest person around, could still solve everybodies problems - not out of charity, but because he would become even stronger by taking away the challenges presented to other people. In this sense, he would help himself by stealing other people's resources - and this, Kreia should approve of! 

 

The game, however, doesn't truly allow for such a solution. We are forced to be either charitable or passive. The spectrum of possible actions does not go beyond romanticism, the binary ideal of beneficient Knight and cruel oppressor.

 

In the end, the whole experiment of mixing classic Star Wars romanticism with "modernist" anti-moralicism clearly fails: We want answers to the very interesting philosophical questions posed during the game, but none are given. Instead, Kreia, the powerful third party beyond Jedi-Morality and Sith-Cruelty, loses her identity and just becomes another Dark Lord and end-level boss.

 

That, for me, was the biggest disappointment, far beyond the nonexistence of some robot planet.  But then again, the stakes were a little to high to expect to win.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here.

 

For your first point, Kreia actually does (or at least, can) say something perfectly supporting your idea. I am paraphrasing here "I don't care if you help people or make them weak. It is good to make people weak, because it gives you strength. But don't delude yourself, don't think you are doing them good. You are simply making yourself stronger."

 

And in no way does Kreia become the Sith cruelty in the end. She even tells you that she is here to strengthen you, to make you stronger. She says that this fight against her is your final test, the thing you need to do to make you the perfect warrior.

 

The game has a wide variety of possiblities: It truly is a well crafted literary gem. It disproves shallow thought that video games cannot be deep or intellectual, the same way people probably once thought movies or music could not be intellectual. I thought it was very interesting how it played that you should gain the strengths of other to be the Superman. That is, in fact, best played out when you are in fact gray: You do not weaken yourself by doing good because you think its right, nor do you weaken yourself with base desires for destruction.

[Msxyz]

Kreia is a better Dark Side character than any other pathetic, sadistic Sith Lord because the essence of Dark side IS selfishness. In a certain way she tries to turn the exile into a sort of Nietzschean ubermensh: assume the role of a leader, consider the universe and its population only as opportunities waiting to be exploited, there's no good or evil but only the personal will. (will zur machen)

 

This is hardly a surprise considering that in the original SW, imperials do resemble nazis and their ideals, which were a distorted view of Nietzsche doctrine and of other classical authors. It was later games and books of the EU which oversemplified the whole Dark Side vs Light Side concept as a Good Vs Evil clich

[Aegis]

In a certain way she tries to turn the exile into a sort of Nietzschean ubermensh: assume the role of a leader, consider the universe and its population only as opportunities waiting to be exploited...

 

That be more of Nietzche's sister's modified version of it. It's more about someone not allowing themselves to be used rather than using others. But that's a discussion for another time.

[KungFuFerret]

Kreia's whole focus is to show you how to impact things down the road, just by pulling a single string.

 

In reality, Kreia's not much different then Palpatine, aside from being grumpier, and less inclined to pretend to be a good-guy. I wouldn't say she tried to remain neutral though. No matter how you play, you quickly pick up on a sinister evil lurking below the surface.

 

She's patient, but her patience only goes so far.

 

The whole EU thing has over simplified the Star Wars Universe in general, and as such, because so many have had preconceived notions, have hated the prequels, which are very much as grey as this game. For the most part, Lucas himself completely ignores the EU, so as far as I'm concerned, none of it exists anyway.

 

 

I'd really like to see more characters like Kreia in games period.

[The Great Phantom]

Kreia was a little too gray, sort of like an extreme Jolee Bindo. Only, instead of being good under it all, she was the opposite. This does not fit in the Star Wars universe, but they did do a good job trying.

 

In all Star Wars stuff, if someone tries to walk the path of neutrality, they end up forced to take sides, and most of the time they end up taking the 'wrong' one. This is evident in several NJO books.

[Cerebus]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here.

 

For your first point, Kreia actually does (or at least, can) say something perfectly supporting your idea. I am paraphrasing here "I don't care if you help people or make them weak. It is good to make people weak, because it gives you strength. But don't delude yourself, don't think you are doing them good. You are simply making yourself stronger."

 

And in no way does Kreia become the Sith cruelty in the end. She even tells you that she is here to strengthen you, to make you stronger. She says that this fight against her is your final test, the thing you need to do to make you the perfect warrior.

 

The game has a wide variety of possiblities: It truly is a well crafted literary gem. It disproves shallow thought that video games cannot be deep or intellectual, the same way people probably once thought movies or music could not be intellectual. I thought it was very interesting how it played that you should gain the strengths of other to be the Superman. That is, in fact, best played out when you are in fact gray: You do not weaken yourself by doing good because you think its right, nor do you weaken yourself with base desires for destruction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

[Kreia:] "Don't be afraid to disagree. Confrontation makes us stronger!"

 

Yes, I see that you are right concerning Kreia's dialogue lines. I've played the game only one time and therefore have limited knowledge of her words - still waiting for the patch before I start a second "reading". There definitely were very impressive moments when she presented her theories and reminded me of Nietzsche, something along the lines of your paraphrase. And I agree, she only wants to get rid of the Exile's belief in "good" and "evil" in the christian sense and make certain he does not delude himself about the things he does. Like I said, Kreia was the single most impressive element in TSL for me - a permanent shiver down my spine and a constant slap in the face of conventional Star Wars romanticism (I'm really curious whether OE will dare to continue this line of presentation in Kotor 3, challenging SW on the SW-stage itself).

 

My argument was aiming more in the direction of the player's possible reactions to her world view, though. I got the impression that you couldn't really play the game in "grey" mode, especially when it comes to choosing dialogue. But I may be mistaken here, too. Perhaps the problem is that I somehow forced myself into the classic morality system, playing a goody-two-shoes Jedi and not giving the game the chance to develop its modernist ideas.

 

I'm quite sure, however, that the ending and its options did not satisfy me. I agree that Kreia did not turn into a mindless killing machine all of a sudden. But she still returns to her Darth identity and hangs around her old Sith playground.

I was hoping she would stay an independent agent, the true alternative to Dark Side and Light Side she was during the main phase of the game.

But perhaps I was a victim of my own romanticism yet again in this case, dissatisfied that she didn't provide me with all the answers and left the Exile alone with the burden of choosing his own path after the old belief systems have fallen apart.

 

Perhaps, the true problem I had with the game was that I still expected Star Wars to somehow 'kiss it all better', offering a distinguishable set of morals in a little illusionary world (while being delighted by the games more disruptive intellectual aspects at the same time) . All I can say for the moment is that it really was an interesting mixture, at least up to a certain point, and that I look forward to taking a second look at it. Maybe now that I got the hero-role out of my system with the first game, I can concentrate on its "grey" side and find it satisfactory after all.

 

I still suspect, however, that the game's romantic aspects and its intellectual innovations will prove an instable combination in the long run - if not in terms of storyline, then at least when it comes to making money. For I suspect that the larger part of the target audience does not want to be confronted with the erosion of romantic ideals.

[Cerebus]

That be more of Nietzche's sister's modified version of it. It's more about someone not allowing themselves to be used rather than using others. But that's a discussion for another time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Another time? Do you think OE will get to a more detailled presentation in Kotor 3?

[Cerebus]

I also think trying to tackle such a deep philosophical subject in a video game is the wrong media to do it in for the simple fact that while games can be smart (as gamers can), the primary purpose of a game... Even an RPG... Is to entertain first and foremost and "teach" or be thought provoking second (if at all).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But isn't it best when the first is achieved via the second? Or vice versa?

 

I would also tend to agree with somebody else's post (sorry, I haven't come to terms with multi-quoting yet) that the role of video-games in relation to other media has changed in the past and is bound to change even more in the future.

 

In the final analysis, I believe a good, intelligent RPG is indefinitely more difficult to write than a screenplay. To allow for radical changes of perspective and completely different behaviour while presenting a more or less constant storyline at the same time is a very courageous undertaking indeed. (I don't want to think about how much work was put into a game like Fallout 2, for example)

It is possibly the highest challenge when it comes to plot construction. And shouldn't artists always strife for "higher grounds"?

[Zilod]

Interesting considerations for sure...

 

Kreia's man for sure have many points of contact with the ubermensh, but also i don't see the Exile as the leader of a galaxy subject to his will, she is trying to build mostly an example for the others than a "classical leader".

 

Also i see her centrality of the man more intimistic than in the Nietzsche doctrine, the Man she speak about is the one that fight against obstacles, and eventually his condition, using his own strenght whitout relying too much on the fate or external help.

 

Instead to see her man as the god-man of the ubermnesh, i see him more as the man that realize, fulfill himself using his own "talents" a man that have the choice to do that.

 

Now i'm not saying that Kreia is is the kind of character near the christian doctrine, she is cynical and selfish most of the time, but as said i see her model, pointing more on that direction that the one of the ubermensh.

 

 

Speaking about the force and SW universe i think this translate in a very surprising way. (i know i alredy said that many times in other 3d )

 

SW is so full of the force that a man whitout the force is just a weak one, the force gives a sort of nobility and the example of Han Solo is quite clear of that.

 

In the movies Han was an important hero and the fact that in EU he become a force sensitive (as almost all other heroes) is indicative that the tought that is the force to give the "nobility of the hero" and the capability to realize important things.

 

A "normal" man could have not done what Han have done, a normal man is gimped whitout the force and will always be an incomplete hero.

 

TSL have an antithetic point of view about that, what for SW is nobility and power here is an obstacle that prevent to the man to realize himself, what for SW is a weakness here is a point of strenght.

 

The force become something that blind the man vision and his tought, a force that prepare the destiny for mens so not a tool to make them better, but a thing that obstacle the own human nature and manipulate it for its own end.

 

For a jedi the force is all, is more important than his own life, a jedi rely on the force to fill his weakness and is quite clear that such behavior will not be helpfull for a man to develope his own talents and potential.

 

This vision can be a bit extreme, but i must say that i see it not to far on how i saw the force pictured in the original movies, the tought of a "dominating" force is very empathized but i think this is an interesting point of view.

 

It could be also interesting to translate the force back to our society and to see if there are this kind of "structures" that prevent us to express ourselves, but i stop here

 

 

Just want to add a thing or 2, i don't consider the jedis assimilable to christian doctrine, jedi many times are kind and help the others, this is a noble purpose indeed but in my eyes make them not be automathically assimilable to christianism.

 

 

and about the games that "must" not speak of important things and have just to be entertainment...

even movies should be that, they where born as a curiosity and entertainment, but luckilly we had many people that tought it more as a form of communication and art.

 

If most of the game sink in the ocean of banality and mediocrity trieng to be just x hours of entertainment then is their fault.

I think we must only appreciate all the authors (not only game developers) that see every form of communication as a chance to express themselves, their feelings and their toughts, as an option to make the target of their communication to think and confront with another sensibility.

[Aegis]

Another time? Do you think OE will get to a more detailled presentation in Kotor 3?

 

I don't know what they are planning. Personally, I hope they'll include more philosophy and moral problems (there are next to no moral problems to be honest). I mean, the Telos situation pretty much sum up how black and white the morals is, despite Kreia's (and IMO welcome) attempts to create a bit of grey. On one side, you have the nature-loving Ithorians who care for all life etc. On the other, you have Czerka, as big, evil and faceless as big evil faceless corporations get. That's not a moral problem, it's merely an obvious choice. But is good always the same thing as right? Perhaps Czerka would be able to complete the restoration project faster and/or better than the Ithorians, albeit in a bit more shady ways. But the game doesn't offer that possibility, it's fairly clear that Czerka doesn't give a damn about Telos. In the same way, the game follow a zealous "it's the thought that counts" philosophy, that I quite frankly find rather silly. Even more so because a good thought does in almost every case result in a good result. That some guy got mugged and that Kreia complain about weakening others doesn't really convince me (though it's actually true to some extent).

The first game suffered from the same problem, but it didn't bother me as much as moral philosophy wasn't a big part of the story as it is in KotOR2. It did however, contain one moral problem that I liked. Specifically, the trial at Manaan (sp?). Dig enough, and you'll find out that the guy is guilty. Should you turn him in, thereby hurting the republic but following the law, or lie, breaking the law but helping the republic? The trial was also a good example of a less linear and somewhat harder puzzle, compared to such puzzles as the murder on Onderon which was merely a matter of walking back and forth between the painfully obvious clues.

 

In any case, back to the point of the quote (i.e. that it was a discussion for another time); I meant that who said what is not important. Nietzche's sister ruined a lot of his philosophy after his death by editing it (and it's generally agreed that she moved it more towards the lines of Nazism). But like I said, it doesn't matter who said it, as long as someone said it. We're discussing applied morals in the game, not where and who the morals are from.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The light-side/dark-side alignment system may itself be a barrier to making the handling of morality more interesting. If you're really going to leave it up to the player to decide whether action A is good or evil, then the game has no business rewarding it with LS or DS points: this is 'giving the correct answer' to a problem which may have no correct answer. There are important choices in the game where the writers deliberately avoid giving DS/LS points, but this is not applied consistently. For players interested in this morality aspect, it might be better to have the DS/LS system disabled, and have the characters you meet in the game react to specific things you have done, rather than to your overall alignment.

 

On the other hand, the DS/LS points provide instant and satisfying feedback for those players (likely the majority) to whom this is an interesting aspect of the game, but not central to their experience. You can't satisfy everone completely. But whether Obsidian's experiment in morality succeeded or failed matters less than the fact that they did experiment - there's no 'dumbing down' here! I hope that NWN2 is just as ambitious.

[Master Dahvernas]

An addendum to my earlier post:

 

As I said, I don't mind developers trying to expand the way games (as a media) are used.

 

However, I just think that in TSL case that they didn't do a good job of it in the sense that the execution fell flat in a lot of areas (mostly due to the cut content that couldn't be included).

 

As another poster said... It's the thought that counts... But in a game, or any narrative-driven piece of entertainment, it is the execution that counts above all else and I think that Obsidian just did not execute it properly in my opinion and that is why I said what I said before about plot holes and it being just a grand experiment that ultimately doesn't fit in to the SW Universe in its current form.

[Drakron]

The dark side will always be a part of Star Wars, remove it and you end up with something that is not Star Wars.

 

I agree the "light side" is a dumb thing that come with the EU, the movies just say "The Force" and "The Dark Side of the Force" ... in fact Star Wars d20 rules have Force Points and Dark Side points and they work diferenty, Force points are awarded from doing something heroic, for example, as Dark Side points are from calling the Dark Side (such as using certain Force Powers).

[Cerebus]

I don't know what they are planning. Personally, I hope they'll include more philosophy and moral problems (there are next to no moral problems to be honest).

[...]

But like I said, it doesn't matter who said it, as long as someone said it. We're discussing applied morals in the game, not where and who the morals are from.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well. tragic conflicts are not a common commodity on the video game market.

And I agree with you ( - if I understood you correctly, that is - ) that the fact that OE tried to address more complex views on morality in the game's story while at the same time filling it with stereotyped good/evil decisions was a little like offering grapes and water to Tantalus.

 

A major problem with the "Grey" approach is the dual Good/Evil-meter:

If Kreia is right, and all actions are only means to an end (of which one should have no illusions) then the action in question should not lead to "Light" or "Dark" points being credited to your moral account. Either your goals 'are' on the 'Light'/'Dark' side or they are not. It probably doesn't matter at all. Imagine Emperor Palpatine suddenly discovering that building shelters for homeless Ewoks makes the citizens of the Empire 1.5% less likely to join the rebels. Would he suddenly end up on the Light side just because he did the "right thing" a couple of hundred times?

The same goes for the TSL main character: if you have to prevent 'drifting' to either 'side' by commiting a countervailing atrocity/ act of charity once in a while, then you are not the morally independent agent Kreia wants you to be.

 

"F**k! I really don't care about anybody and I really want to keep the nice damage bonus that comes with Dark Mastery, but I also need to be nice to my party members so that I can get them to follow me blindly. Guess I will have to kill some Jawas later on as a penance for asking Atton about his feelings, even if only for completely selfish reasons."

 

If that is not a case of true tragic conflict.....

 

I guess the only sollution would be to offer an infinitely more complex set of possible answers:

 

a) I want to help you

b) I want to help you (but just because you've got a great body)

c) [Lie] I want to help you (in truth planning to stay inactive)

d) [Lie] I want to help you (in truth planning to harm the other)

e) [Not caring at all but playing along just for the sake of argument] I want to help you.

f) [being swept away by emotions at the moment but forgetting all about the promise later on] I want to help you

 

and so on, and so on, and so on....

[Cerebus]

The light-side/dark-side alignment system may itself be a barrier to making the handling of morality more interesting. [...]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Heh. It took me so long to write my reply to the previous post that I couldn't read yours earlier. I see we came to the same conclusion.

[Brannart]

In the movies Han was an important hero and the fact that in EU he become a force sensitive (as almost all other heroes) is indicative that the tought that is the force to give the "nobility of the hero" and the capability to realize important things.

 

He becomes force sensitive? BAH how lame is that <_<

[AlanC9]

A major problem with the "Grey" approach is the dual Good/Evil-meter:

If Kreia is right, and all actions are only means to an end (of which one should have no illusions) then the action in question should not lead to "Light" or "Dark" points being credited to your moral account. Either your goals 'are' on the 'Light'/'Dark' side or they are not. It probably doesn't matter at all. Imagine Emperor Palpatine suddenly discovering that building shelters for homeless Ewoks makes the citizens of the Empire 1.5% less likely to join the rebels. Would he suddenly end up on the Light side just because he did the "right thing" a couple of hundred times?

 

Indeed. But the simple answer is that Kreia is wrong. The SW universe doesn't work like that.

[Zilod]

I don't understand why so many see Kreia as a sort of Jolee Bindo and TSL as the grey way...

 

Kreia is against the force, light, dark and grey, is against the essence of the force itself that manipulate humanity and prevent to many people to realize their potential.

 

as said in the other post i consider Kreia view, and TSL one, a no force point of view.

[Cerebus]

Interesting considerations for sure...

Kreia's man for sure have many points of contact with the ubermensh, but also i don't see the Exile as the leader of a galaxy subject to his will, she is trying to build mostly an example for the others than a "classical leader".

True, the Exile is probably not meant to be a prototype

[Sebastian]

a) I want to help you

b) I want to help you (but just because you've got a great body)

c) [Lie] I want to help you (in truth planning to stay inactive)

d) [Lie] I want to help you  (in truth planning to harm the other)

e) [Not caring at all but playing along just for the sake of argument] I want to help you.

f) [being swept away by emotions at the moment but forgetting all about the promise later on] I want to help you

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Planescape: Torment did something like that in quite a few of its dialogues, though not to the degree you describe.

1. [Lie] I love you.

2. I love you.

(...)

[Cerebus]

I don't understand why so many see Kreia as a sort of Jolee Bindo and TSL as the grey way...

 

Kreia is against the force, light, dark and grey, is against the essence of the force itself that manipulate humanity and prevent to many people to realize their potential.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, that is one of he points I keep forgetting myself. The reason for that is that the idea of a "forceless" being is kinda vague, especially because the Exile's rediscovery of the force is celebrated as a big event, even by Kreia. And considering the stuff he can do with it and Kreia's philosophy of making use of every tool available, I find it strange that she would refrain from using the ultimate means.

 

The problem here, I guess, is that the Force itself is such a remarkably nondescript concept. What is it? A source of infinite Energy? A conscious entity? Can one use the former without being controlled by the latter, etc, etc. ? I find it strange that Kreia would let her "

[Cerebus]

Planescape: Torment did something like that in quite a few of its dialogues, though not to the degree you describe.

1. [Lie] I love you.

2. I love you.

(...)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I heard lots of good things about Planescape.

I tried playing it once, but the German dubbing really sucks!

 

KOTOR 2 also offers the opportunity to choose between [Lie] and [Truth], but this option remains "ein Tropfen auf dem hei

[Drakron]

I got a lot of influence with her and no, what she wants is someone that is not blinded by the force.

 

The Exile can feel the Force but is at the same time cut from it but not the danger the Jedi Masters seen in him, I think the Jedi Masters acted out of ignorance.

 

The danger is that the Exile was like a blind man that could see and a deft man that could hear, he could teach others to use the Force without being ruled by it.