Speculation on the Jedi Masters

[SamuraiGaijin]

The naming convention of wars is a tricky subject, even in our own histroy ... for example, nearly all of the battles in the American Civil War / War Between the States / War of Northern Aggression had two names - based on the nearest town or nearest geographic feature - the only common theme is that the name the victors used is more often the one accepted by history.

 

In general, the common theme in the Star Wars "history" is to name wars after whatever aspect made them different from previous wars.

 

The "Jedi Civil War" was different from most others in that the key leaders on both sides were at one time members of the Jedi Order - and since the victorious side in the Jedi Civil War is determined in K2 by dialog choices, "Jedi Civil War" seems to be a good compromise.

[Calax]

And Sith War was already taken

[DAWUSS]

One thing I noticed after going through the trial once again was that notion that it was Atris and Vrook vs. Ell and Vash, while Kavar seemed to be on the fence. The next interesting thing is when the Exile and Atris have their conversation on Telos for the first time, the Exile brings up the statement that she thinks Atris wanted in on the war too but didn't because she didn't want to defy the Order, but at the trial, she's hell-bent on kicking you out, and even runs around with your lightsaber. I almost find it mind boggling that she's the only one who gets the option of staying alive at the end of the game (though I get the feeling she committed suicide after the Exile left, even though I don't really know why...). If she did live on, I have a feeling she would have returned to her seat on the order along with who all else takes a seat in the rebuilt Jedi Council (dunno who else would at this moment)

[Jediphile]

Whether Atris lived or died, possibly killing herself, is probably one of those things that will be left for the indvidual player to decide for him or herself, I think.

 

The simple reason for that is similar to that of Vandar's fate - at the end of the game you may or may not have killed Atris, so the easiest way to deal with her is probably to write her out of the story and just assume that she is dead, since that will upset the fans the least. Sad, though, since I'd like to see Atris again...

 

Personally I didn't get the feeling that she killed herself after I left her alive on Telos in the LS ending. You basically convince her that she can resist the DS only by giving up the force itself, and so she vows to leave all her jedi teachings behind. I like to think that she settled down and gave up the force pursuing less dangerous lore... But then I may just be a old softie

[DAWUSS]

I like to think that she settled down and gave up the force pursuing less dangerous lore... But then I may just be a old softie 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think she's too stubborn and proud to do that

 

If we do see Atris in III I want it to be more of an "Oh, that's Atris" kind of reaction rather than "OMG NO! WHAT HAPPENED TO HER! NOOOOOOO!" kind of reaction

[mastone]

i think goto(not the droid the person) is davik and i hope they create new jedi masters better ones.

[Master_Vrook]

Davik is dead like Lincoln and I couldn't understand the rest of what you had to say.

[mastone]

how do you know for sure?

in kotor 1 i also thought calo nord was dead but later on i still had to fight him again .....

[Jediphile]

i think goto(not the droid the person) is davik and i hope they create new jedi masters better ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Er, no. Sorry.

 

Total GOTO Spoiler - see only if you don't mind having his secrets completely spoiled:

There is no Goto person - the droid GOTO is the real thing. He just created a hologram of a man to interact with others so that he could manipulate the bounty hunters and the Exchange. If you build influence with GOTO, you can get him to admit that he was, in fact, the droid originally assigned to monitor the trouble on Telos. Chodo even mentions this droid, I think. They gave GOTO the command to save the Republic, and that caused a glitch, since that was a contradiction to his programming to uphold the law. Instead he left on a quest to save the Republic by any means, and he is searching for Jedi because he realizes their value as figureheads in the Republic.

 

[Ulicus]

=Jediphile,Aug 12 2005, 05:28 PM

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...

 

*(Edit 3: given up trying to make the quotes work)

 

Huh? Yeah, I don't dispute that - I think what the Jedi Council did was as morally ambiguous as you can get.

 

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:

We do not know Revan's motivations, nor what he knew at what time, until he himself (or we are allowed to choose) tells us

 

Yeah, sorry, I was just going with the general consensus on his motivations that people like yourself have pieced together from the game. I could have and should have made that clearer. My bad.

 

1. Jedi did fight in the war.

 

Fought in the war, yes. Exclusively? No.

 

2. It was former jedi against current jedi. Or

 

2a. Dark jedi vs. jedi

 

The war was Republic vs Sith, and included a Jedi vs dark Jedi aspect

[GhostofAnakin]

It was called the Jedi Civil War because of what started the conflict. It was the Jedi that followed Revan versus the Jedi that followed the Order. It escalated into an all out galactic conflict, but the antagonist of the war was the Revan Jedi camp versus the Jedi Order camp.

 

I don't see how you can say that is different than the Clone Wars. If you want to get technical, the Clone Wars should have been called something that reflects the two combatants: The Republic and the Seperatists.

 

I think you're taking the useage of the name way too literal.

[Ulicus]

It was called the Jedi Civil War because of what started the conflict.  It was the Jedi that followed Revan versus the Jedi that followed the Order.  It escalated into an all out galactic conflict, but the antagonist of the war was the Revan Jedi camp versus the Jedi Order camp.

 

I don't see how you can say that is different than the Clone Wars.  If you want to get technical, the Clone Wars should have been called something that reflects the two combatants: The Republic and the Seperatists.

 

I think you're taking the useage of the name way too literal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know why it was called the Jedi Civil War... what annoys me is that the "why", at least the "why" that KotOR II seemed to be promoting, is flawed. The fact that it's not restricted to the Jedi aside for a moment, it's not even primarily waged by the Jedi - the Republic are fighting the war and the Jedi support the Republic. How can this sit so easily with everyone?

 

"the antagonist of the war was the Revan Jedi camp versus the Jedi Order camp."

 

Not so, I'm assuming you're saying that main two sides involved were the Revan Jedi and Order Jedi, play KotOR again. The Jedi Order was important to the Republic war effort, not the other way around. The centrepiece was the Jedi vs Sith action sure - but you don't name a war after its highlights... urm, not that war has any "highlights" so to speak.

 

"I don't see how you can say that is different than the Clone Wars. If you want to get technical, the Clone Wars should have been called something that reflects the two combatants: The Republic and the Seperatists."

 

I've shown you how I can say it's different, and I've already gotten "technical" (if you can call it that ) and given you the explanation as for why it wasn't given a name that reflects both combatants. Granted, it's probably hard to uncover what I'm saying in that mess of bodged quotations :ph34r: but I definately did show how it was different.

 

Gist:

 

The "Jedi Civil War" as a name is as different to the Clone Wars, the same way as it's different to the Sith War (Exar Kun's), or the Galactic Civil War.

 

In the Clone Wars - the main event, the war, was primarily waged by the clones. It was also the first time Clones had ever been used in warfare, so it made sense that the wars should take the name from this new "cannon fodder". It didn't reflect both sides, but it certainly reflected every battle - which consisted of an "attack of the clones" time and time again...

 

The name comes from the Republic's standpoint - not the Separatists, since they lost. Had the Separatists won (lets just pretend it wasn't stage managed for a moment), the wars would probably have been known as something else.

 

In the Galactic Civil War, the war was between two opposing factions within the galaxy - one being the Empire the other being the Rebel Alliance. Would the Empire have referred to it as a Civil War? Unlikely, they'd have just seen the Rebels as a nuisance to be squished. Since the Rebels won however, the name given reflected what it had been to them.

 

In contrast, the Jedi Civil War - if taken to mean "a war where Jedi turned against Jedi" - makes less sense, as the Jedi vs Jedi aspect wasn't what was presented to the Republic at large. I am not refuting that Jedi did not turn against Jedi.

 

If taken to mean, "a galactic civil war instigated by "Jedi" (Sith)" then it's less of a problem, since that is (more or less) what it was and it becomes inclusive of the entire conflict. It also makes more sense in the context of what some characters say:

 

Go-To for example:

 

"It is unknown to many, but the Republic actually lost the Jedi Civil War"

 

If the primary conflict was Jedi vs Jedi, why would it be the Republic that lost? (Heh, putting it in italics makes me think I'm writing a philosophy paper...)

 

"I think you're taking the useage of the name way too literal."

 

In other words, I'm right.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have accepted the name and the reasons behind it being given - though I do have to put that "Republican propaganda" spin on it - I just think that a better name could have been chosen, one that more accurately reflected what was depicted in KotOR and required less explaination on the part of pretty much every NPC in the game.

 

Since I enjoyed 90% of KotOR 2s story, background and otherwise awesome recreation of the GFFA, little things like this can bug me to the point where it becomes all consuming. I mean, I went through KotOR I with a tlkeditor and ruthlessly changed all references to "the Sith War" (Revan and Malak's) to "the Jedi Civil War", so as to create a more fluid link between the two games... which is all I want.

[DAWUSS]

I guess they were implying that the JCW was basically Revan vs. Malak, which, they have a point, but I think there was more to it than that. Also, it implements that they were both Jedi, something that can be speculated upon

[Dark Moth]

I guess they were implying that the JCW was basically Revan vs. Malak, which, they have a point, but I think there was more to it than that. Also, it implements that they were both Jedi, something that can be speculated upon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Malak wasn't a Jedi during the war. He was a Sith. While many of the Sith were once Jedi who abandoned the order, the fact remains that once they become Sith or Dark Jedi, they abandon the beliefs of the Jedi and are no longer Jedi. So regardless of what one might think, calling the conflict the Jedi Civil War, regardless of why it was named that, is innacurate. End of story.

[GhostofAnakin]

But Malak wasn't a Jedi during the war.  He was a Sith.  While many of the Sith were once Jedi who abandoned the order, the fact remains that once they become Sith or Dark Jedi, they abandon the beliefs of the Jedi and are no longer Jedi.  So regardless of what one might think, calling the conflict the Jedi Civil War, regardless of why it was named that, is innacurate.  End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He was a fallen Jedi. To people around the galaxy, that's the same as being a Jedi.

 

Did you not read the dialogue in K2 to explain why people thought of it like that? They explained a few times why most of the population considered it a "Jedi vs. Jedi" conflict.

 

To say it's innacurate is, well, innacurate.

[SamuraiGaijin]

If we do see Atris in III I want it to be more of an "Oh, that's Atris" kind of reaction rather than "OMG NO! WHAT HAPPENED TO HER! NOOOOOOO!" kind of reaction

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I liked Atris as a character - and would like to see more of her - however, even in the light side ending, where you did you darnedest to save her and make her see that immersing herself in the knowledge of the Sith was bad, there's no real indication that she will turn back to the LS. Also, in the LS ending, it Kreia says that Brianna will take over as Jedi Historian.

 

Of course, if you're playing DS, chances are you kill her or leave her to suffer among the Sith holocrons - opening the door for her to return possibly as a Darth Traya of sorts in K3.

 

This (and other major differences in the plot on the LS and DS paths) is going to make a sequel either very difficult to craft, or unfulfilling to those of us who would like to see questions answered.

[DAWUSS]

I'm sure that the canon ending has Atris being spared and after her experiences with the Sith holocrons she passes the torch on to Brianna while she continues to serve on the council

[mastone]

oh jediphile i didn't know that, i never played with any of the droids

[Master_Vrook]

I think that they decided to name the military campaign portion of the war something along the lines of the "Sith and Republic war" and the war between the jedi and the sith "The Jedi Civil War.". The JCW may have continued long after the battle for the starforge as people act as though it had effected them more specifically then the military campaign style part of the war.

[Ulicus]

I guess they were implying that the JCW was basically Revan vs. Malak, which, they have a point, but I think there was more to it than that. Also, it implements that they were both Jedi, something that can be speculated upon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Malak wasn't a Jedi during the war. He was a Sith. While many of the Sith were once Jedi who abandoned the order, the fact remains that once they become Sith or Dark Jedi, they abandon the beliefs of the Jedi and are no longer Jedi. So regardless of what one might think, calling the conflict the Jedi Civil War, regardless of why it was named that, is innacurate. End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not so - as GhostofAnakin says, to the galaxy Jedi and Sith amount to pretty much the same thing - this was also evident in KotOR I

 

Loading screen: "Many people distrust the Jedi almost as much as they do the Sith, they don't understand either group"

 

"Jedi Civil War", if understood as "a war amongst Jedi" is an inaccurate term because Jedi vs Dark Jedi/Sith wasn't what the conflict was. Even if it had been called the "Jedi vs Sith War" it would have been inaccurate.

 

The Republic was at war with the "Sith" (inclusive of dark Jedi and military) and the Jedi defended the Republic. *Thats* what we were shown in KotOR 1, *thats* what the general public seemed to see it as. Not a Civil War amongst Jedi factions, a "Civil War" within the galaxy.

 

Never did you see a an average person say, "The Jedi bombed Telos", it was always "The Sith destroyed Telos" - not because they understood the difference between Jedi and Sith (they might well have thought the Sith were led by "Jedi") but because they understood that it was a war between the Republic and the Sith - not Jedi branches.

[Dark Moth]

I guess they were implying that the JCW was basically Revan vs. Malak, which, they have a point, but I think there was more to it than that. Also, it implements that they were both Jedi, something that can be speculated upon

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Malak wasn't a Jedi during the war. He was a Sith. While many of the Sith were once Jedi who abandoned the order, the fact remains that once they become Sith or Dark Jedi, they abandon the beliefs of the Jedi and are no longer Jedi. So regardless of what one might think, calling the conflict the Jedi Civil War, regardless of why it was named that, is innacurate. End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not so - as GhostofAnakin says, to the galaxy Jedi and Sith amount to pretty much the same thing - this was also evident in KotOR I

 

Loading screen: "Many people distrust the Jedi almost as much as they do the Sith, they don't understand either group"

 

"Jedi Civil War", if understood as "a war amongst Jedi" is an inaccurate term because Jedi vs Dark Jedi/Sith wasn't what the conflict was. Even if it had been called the "Jedi vs Sith War" it would have been inaccurate.

 

The Republic was at war with the "Sith" (inclusive of dark Jedi and military) and the Jedi defended the Republic. *Thats* what we were shown in KotOR 1, *thats* what the general public seemed to see it as. Not a Civil War amongst Jedi factions, a "Civil War" within the galaxy.

 

Never did you see a an average person say, "The Jedi bombed Telos", it was always "The Sith destroyed Telos" - not because they understood the difference between Jedi and Sith (they might well have thought the Sith were led by "Jedi") but because they understood that it was a war between the Republic and the Sith - not Jedi branches.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But it doesn't matter how the rest of the Galaxy sees Jedi and Sith in this instance. It's still inaccurate. Why? Because the term "Jedi Civil War" implies that it was an internal conflict between factions of Jedi. People can be innaccurate in naming wars and conflicts. For instance, the war of 1812 wasn't just fought in 1812, but it's known as that. Or how the Battle of Bunker Hill wasn't fought on Bunker Hill. That's the same thing here. Calling the term Jedi Civil War 'innaccurate' is not inaccurate.

 

I know all about how people in the SW universe tend to distrust Jedi and Sith and don't see the difference in either group, but that still doesn't make it any less accurate. But they didn't call it a Galactic Civil War, they called it a Jedi Civil War, as if it was just Jedi fighting Jedi, which was not true. As I said, Dark Jedi and Sith are not Jedi, and there were also more involved than just Jedi.

[mastone]

off topic:what is the difference between dark jedi and sith?

[germi91]

A dark Jedi tends to refer to a Jedi knight who has fallen to the dark side. For example, Revan was a dark jedi during the Jedi civil war.

 

A Sith is a member of the Sith tradition, having it's own code and moral and understands the dark side better than a Dark Jedi. An example is Darth Sidious.

 

Normally, a Dark Jedi is able to use force powers from both sides, but a Jedi or Sith understand better their alignments and have a code to follow, plus both sides have secrets which only true Sith or Jedi are allowed to know. The Dark Jedi are chaotic and tend to have their own goals. They can be good or evil.

[Jediphile]

I know all about how people in the SW universe tend to distrust Jedi and Sith and don't see the difference in either group, but that still doesn't make it any less accurate.  But they didn't call it a Galactic Civil War, they called it a Jedi Civil War, as if it was just Jedi fighting Jedi, which was not true.  As I said, Dark Jedi and Sith are not Jedi, and there were also more involved than just Jedi. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I'm sure the chinese or japanese could argue similarly that it should not be called World War I, yet the war is known as such in history in general today (originally just "The Great War"). Wars are not named by a convention of accurate description so much as by how they are generally perceived by the majority of people. I guess the recent war in Iraq will be (or is already) known as the second Gulf war, even though lots of nations in the region was not involved at all. That's also inaccurate...

 

And then, of course, there's the point that Obsidian might have preferred the term "Jedi Civil War" simply because they did not won't confusion between the Sith under Revan and Malak and the true Sith that we will presumably fight in KotOR3. Also, I wouldn't dismiss the idea that it might be called "Jedi Civil War" simply keep reminding the player that the conflict of the last game as well as the current was rooted more in the dissent within the jedi order itself than in some invading Sith from somewhere else. We know that, but it would help to drive the point home.

[Calax]

Usually wars are either named after a significant event (The Clone Wars), It's participants (World Wars 1 and 2, and the Jedi Civil war) or if it's irregular in terms of length or what happens it will usually take on the name of the year or the number of years in the war (War of 1812, 100 years war). The major hangup for this is that different states call different wars different things. For example the second World War was refferred to by the Soviets as the "Great Patriotic War". The American Civil War could be called the "Southern Rebellion" by the observers (entirly speculation).

 

The thing about KOTOR is that the writers seemed to be flying by the seat of their pants with no care for continuity, so in K1 we see the conflict that they were fighting as the "Sith War" because they were fighting Sith. meanwhile the war that is famous for being the "Sith war" gets relegated to the "War of Exar Kun" when Exar's war was much greater in terms of magnatute and in terms of participants. The war now reffered to as the Jedi Civil War seemed to have no major unit actions beyond ship battles. You never saw large numbers of warriors going at it and I didn't get a sense that this was bigger than the jedi because the soldiers never actually fought each other except on the Endar Spire.

 

I would guess that that would be the main reason to use Jedi Civil War as the official title because there was not actual ground combat seen between the Republic and Sith. It was all done by Jedi. To Me when the starforge was broken it was as if Vandar had gone to sympathetic Fleet admrial who took only the ships under her command to wipe out the starforge rather than to pull the entire fleet. If you look at the # of ships that arrive it's rather small for a galaxy spanning government to be able to pull together. Even if its only short notice usually fleets have 10+ heavy capital ships attached to them with smaller ships possibly even doubleing the heavy's numbers. At the Star forge there we maybe 4 of the largest class of capital ships while the smaller ones had a about 10 to 15. Based on that I'm going to assume it was only a troupe that was commanded by Admrial Dodonna who responded to the request of Vandar not every available ship.