Speculation on the Jedi Masters

[darthbass123]

Can you please explain how Evil can sometimes be more honorable than good, and give an example because i think your totally wrong. Evil doesn't know the meaning of the word honor.

[master_pendrak]

ok say for example Jedi A is infact Jedi B's father and has kept it hidden from him for 20 years. Then Jedi B doesnt know his father or know that infact for 20 years he has known Jedi A who is his father and Jedi A has kept it hidden for some obscure Jedi cryptic reason.

 

Now say Jedi A was infact a Sith, then Sith A told Jedi B by being evil Sith A has been honourable in releasing the truth about Jedi B's father. Who infact is Sith A lol

 

to keep secrets hidden from someone usually causes more pain when they are found out, and they are found out eventually anyway. Where as if the truth is just told in the open there is pain, anger but it heals quicker and isn't rooted as deep.

[Dark Moth]

ok say for example Jedi A is infact Jedi B's father and has kept it hidden from him for 20 years. Then Jedi B doesnt know his father or know that infact for 20 years he has known Jedi A who is his father and Jedi A has kept it hidden for some obscure Jedi cryptic reason.

 

Now say Jedi A was infact a Sith, then Sith A told Jedi B by being evil Sith A has been honourable in releasing the truth about Jedi B's father. Who infact is Sith A lol

 

to keep secrets hidden from someone usually causes more pain when they are found out, and they are found out eventually anyway. Where as if the truth is just told in the open there is pain, anger but it heals quicker and isn't rooted as deep.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your example is far from compelling. You automatically assume in your statement that a Jedi keeps secrets for no reason and that a Sith never keeps secrets. Why would the Jedi's father not tell him simply because he was a Jedi? Why would he tell him simply because he's a Sith? You say that 'for some cryptic Jedi reason' but fail to even explain beyond that. It doesn't make sense. If anything, a good person would tell his son that he's his father so his son can escape that pain.

 

Those who say there's no line between good and evil are ususally those who have no understanding of the two. Kreia was very evil and held many Sith beliefs , yet somehow believed she was better than the Sith. "All that talk about hatred, manipulation, and standing on your two feet, sorry, you don't get any more Sith than that." - Atton (see, Jediphile? A quote!)

 

Calax says that sometimes evil people fight more honorably than good people, but fails to even explain why or give an example, which leads me to the conclusion that he's making stuff up. If I'm wrong, Calax, please correct me. But so far all evidence I've seen is not convincing.

 

[Krookie]

Can you please explain how Evil can sometimes be more honorable than good, and give an example because i think your totally wrong. Evil doesn't know the meaning of the word honor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view."...You may think that what I am doing is evil, but in my eyes it may be honorable.

See Mandalorians.

[master_pendrak]

The Jedi are for all intensive purposes the "good" guys yet they have many faults which can be considered, not really evil, but bad. One of these is their crypticness they keep and withhold information to suit their own ends in some situations.

 

e.g - K1 they never tell Revan that she has been mind wiped. Which is understandable offcourse, but yet still wrong. Perhaps had they told Revan what had happened and helped her try to remember things then maybe with their guidance they could have located the starforge earlier. In K2 they never tell the Exile why and what happened to him at Malachor V, although they may not have had a clear picture themselves. They still knew information which could have helped save them from the Sith attacks through the force. Had they told Exile he may have been able to aid them in their fight with the Sith. Instead they keep that info to themselves and exile him.

 

But somehow the Sith are branded as completly evil, well Jedi banish and exclude anyone who doesnt stay to their code. So the Sith started their own order and the Jedi find it to be "wrong" because it is the opposite of their own code and order. And one can argue Sith are fueled by hatred and anger which is wrong, but human and honest. When someone is angry its an honest emotion that blazes brightly for someone to see. Their motives are honest and cleanly set infront of everyone. Which is more than can be said for the Jedi who withhold information and become cryptic over issues when it suits them.

 

Because Revan fell to the darkside doesnt make her a bad person or evil person. Infact falling could be a bigger benefit to the galaxy as a whole, as Kreia put it the Republic had become complacent unchallenged for too long. Thanks to Revan many died yes, but many grew stronger for it. The mandalorians weakened the Republic and Revan struck them when they were already fragile, but the Republic strengthened from it. People strengthened from it and the galaxy had suffered, but from suffering comes strength. What doesnt kill us only makes us stronger.

 

 

I have to admit my comment above was plain and bland and as you put it mothman, hardly compelling. But it wasn't meant to be in depth or superiorly explanatory about good and evil, we all know in our minds what we think is good and what is evil. And i think that stems to the Star Wars universe too, each Jedi is individuel yet the same. All have different views on good or bad and that goes for the Sith too. Just look at Revan and Malak they felt helping people fight was good, the masters felt that it was bad. Both views were wrong yet correct, by fighting they saved more lives but also gave opportunity to fall to the darkside.

[Dark Moth]

Both the Jedi and the Sith, as you said, are flawed, IMO. Each one has weaknesses and strengths. I also know that not all Jedi are 'good' and not all Sith are 'evil'. A good example: Yuthura Ban. She was a Sith, but when you got to know her you found out she really wasn't evil. Although I disagree with you on a few points, such as your statements about Revan. I don't believe he had to 'fall to the darkside' to achieve his goals, but we've already argued that.

 

I am merely saying that as a whole, I think the beliefs of the Jedi are for the most part good, and the Sith beliefs for the most part are evil. But as you also said, people can interpret good and evil in different ways, and sometimes it's not black and white.

 

The main problem I have with K2 was that it was too gray. It made almost no distinctions between good and evil. It made is seem as if there was no difference between the two. K1 was a tad black and white, I admit, but not nearly as much as some claim, IMO.

[master_pendrak]

Both the Jedi and the Sith, as you said, are flawed, IMO. Each one has weaknesses and strengths. I also know that not all Jedi are 'good' and not all Sith are 'evil'. A good example: Yuthura Ban. She was a Sith, but when you got to know her you found out she really wasn't evil. Although I disagree with you on a few points, such as your statements about Revan. I don't believe he had to 'fall to the darkside' to achieve his goals, but we've already argued that.

 

I am merely saying that as a whole, I think the beliefs of the Jedi are for the most part good, and the Sith beliefs for the most part are evil. But as you also said, people can interpret good and evil in different ways, and sometimes it's not black and white.

 

The main problem I have with K2 was that it was too gray. It made almost no distinctions between good and evil. It made is seem as if there was no difference between the two. K1 was a tad black and white, I admit, but not nearly as much as some claim, IMO.

 

i agree with basically all you've said, the Jedi are more good offcourse i just think in K2 they seemed abit more dark and it shed light on the fact Jedi aren't always the "pillars of society" we have come to think of them. But yes K2 seemed abit grey in areas where it needed a clear distinction in good or evil. K1 wouldn't have worked if it wasn't black and white half as well as it did, because it is meant to be black and white. You are after all playing as a more Jedi character than the Exile, who is well neither Sith or Jedi even if your light or dark. You still are classed IMO as a neutral by everyone which made it a little dull.

 

But IMO i prefer grey over pure light or dark, because IMO Dark and Light can't work without the grey in the middle. Its like a sandwiche...

 

light = the top

grey = the filling

dark = the base

 

they dont work without one another, Kreia had seen both sides of the spectrum and chose to be neutral till her final manipulation. She knew the disadvantages of light and dark but ultimately chose the darkside to further her means and goals. But chose to train the Exile as a neutral so he would learn from her perspective of having seen both light and dark side teachings.

[Guest MacleodCorp]

Do you think the Jedi Masters are as much the enemy as the Sith?

I thought Vrook had gone mad. In KotOR I, Vrook was some what civil and reserve. Now, I think he was too much of a pompus. Vrook was definatly a Sith in nature. However, ther others are hypercrites, for they originally said, "It is good to have you around" to "Now you know why you must not live." If the characters stayed true to their personality, I would not have mind their existance.

[master_pendrak]

i noticed their personality changes, its like....Kavar was happy and relieved your alive and Zez-Kai Ell is pleased you return. But once they mix with Vrook they turn on you i think...

[Master_Vrook]

They just did what they thought they needed to do to save the Galaxy. Vrook and the others were still in the light.

[GhostofAnakin]

i noticed their personality changes, its like....Kavar was happy and relieved your alive and Zez-Kai Ell is pleased you return. But once they mix with Vrook they turn on you i think...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think their attitude necessarily changed. They always seemed somewhat...skeptical of your presence. Vrook was the only one who was openly hostile towards you. The other two just seemed to think you were too much of a threat, but almost felt bad for having to do it.

[Dark Moth]

They just did what they thought they needed to do to save the Galaxy. Vrook and the others were still in the light.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Geez, Vrook, why do you have to disagree with every thread? "

 

Yay! I'm the odd one out!

 

What else is new? You feel the need to disagree with every thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Master_Vrook]

I can't help but think I deserved that. But you must admit you do seem to be the odd one out almost every thread.

[Dark Moth]

I can't help but think I deserved that. But you must admit you do seem to be the odd one out almost every thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I have been the odd one out in almost every thread that YOU have read. You have only been active in these forums for about two weeks, so don't say that I disagree with almost every thread when you haven't even been around for that long. That is all I'm trying to say, here.

[Jediphile]

Do you think the Jedi Masters are as much the enemy as the Sith?

I thought Vrook had gone mad. In KotOR I, Vrook was some what civil and reserve. Now, I think he was too much of a pompus. Vrook was definatly a Sith in nature. However, ther others are hypercrites, for they originally said, "It is good to have you around" to "Now you know why you must not live." If the characters stayed true to their personality, I would not have mind their existance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just to clarify one thing:

 

The jedi masters did *not* attempt to kill the Exile. They merely tried to cut all of the Exiles ties to the force entirely, so that he would no longer represent a threat to it. He had wounded the force, and they feared how else he might hurt it.

 

They would not have killed him, if Kreia had not stopped them, though. They would simply have done to him what Nomi Sunrider did to Ulic Qel-Droma - prevent him from ever using the force again by severing any and all ties to it.

 

In essence, they would have taken away the Exile's force-sensitivity. But it was not a death sentense. Note that they say their verdict is still the same as before - exile.

[Lord Kil]

On the K1 council's decision: They had few options available. Technically, the war was already lost, Malak was going to crush them with Revan's army. Since Revan had disobeyed them before, I understand why they didn't trust him with the truth of his identity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yet using him casually because it's convenient is a mark of the Sith, not the jedi. They argue redemption, but they are not willing to put it to the test, and they can't even be bothered to ask his companions if he has changed. The fact that they don't suggests that they are more concerned with his disobidience than with his motives for defying them, which speaks volumes about their own arrogance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Without the mind wipe Lord Revan would have simply been a hostile and very dangerous prisoner. The council would have no way to find the source of Malak's fleet, and Malak would crush the republic. I don't believe this is a "casual" use of Revan, they are sacrificing one individual in an attempt to save the millions of lives.

 

They are only worried about his "disobedience" because he has a history of disobedience. I believe they were correct in not being 100% honest with Revan because of that history. First he is the leader of the group of Jedi's that go to war against the council's decision. Then he becomes the Dark Lord of the Sith and attempts to take over the republic.

 

Is there any reason why the K1 council should trust in "Lord" Revan's motives? Is there any reason why the council should believe that "Lord" Revan would help them destroy the army he created?

[Marka Ragnos]

I just wish that we stuck with kotor1's view of lord revan. the typical bad guy trying to take over the galaxy. now with kotor2 he has all these hidden motives and there's really some unseen threat and it wasn't all about power and ruling the galaxy, that he fell to the dark side to save the galaxy. bah...

[hawk]

Let me try to see the errors of the Jedi masters in both Kotor I and II.

In Kotor I we learned that the Jedi Council mindwiped Revan to deal with the threat that the Starforge and Malak represented. IMO this is not wrong because it is actually quiet merciful considering that Revan was a Sith Lord who didn't stop Malak from destroying worlds (like Telos). Maybe Revan never destroyed worlds himself but he/she let Malak do it and that is his/hers worst crime.

 

Conclusion: Mindwiping Revan for the good of the galaxy and giving him/her a chance of redemption is justified. At least for me.

 

The mistake they make however is that they send Bastila in the group with Revan to find this Star Forge. If they both fell to the Dark Side they would become an enemy which the Jedi cannot handle.

 

In Kotor II we see that the only Jedi who didn't fall to the Dark side and followed Revan was send into Exile. And this was only because they felt the wound in the force which they were afraid off. Exile didn't do anything bad until we could decide to make the Exile DS. Which of course can be blamed on the Jedi Council for exiling this Jedi.

 

Conclusion: Sending our Jedi in II into Exile is a very big mistake and can bring another enemy to the galaxy.

 

Then as we play our Exile as LS, the remaining Jedi Masters want to cut the Exile off from the Force. A very wrong decision since it would immidiately bring doom to Telos which will be attacked by Nihilus (If Kreia didn't intervene).

 

Or would Kavar, Vrook and Zez Kai Ell kill Nihilus on the Ravager and go to Malachor V to kill Sion. Thereby eliminating the threat?! I wonder.

 

O and eh. The Jedi masters didn't fall to the Dark Side. When you have Force Sight you can see the blue light.

[Jediphile]

Without the mind wipe Lord Revan would have simply been a hostile and very dangerous prisoner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wasn't talking about when they did the mind wipe, but when Revan came to Dantooine from Taris and began his retraining. I thought that was more than obvious from context - what companions did Revan have when Bastila's strike team brought him back to the jedi? None. So those can't be the companions I talked about.

 

The council would have no way to find the source of Malak's fleet, and Malak would crush the republic. I don't believe this is a "casual" use of Revan, they are sacrificing one individual in an attempt to save the millions of lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only it's not their choice to make. Again, how many people is it okay to sacrifice for the greater good? The answer is none. The only one who could morally have made that choice was the individual himself - Revan.

 

He was a different person from his experiences on Taris, and if you had played him as LS, he might even have gone along with the sacrifice they put him through. But they didn't. They didn't ask Bastila whether he had changed - or if they did they, it certainly had little or no influence on their use of him - and they didn't ask his companions. That doesn't paint a very nice picture of their motives.

 

They had turned Revan into a weapon they could use and manipulate, and they never hesitated to do so... Where were all those moral and ethical standards they claimed to protect then? They got casually tossed out the window when they became inconvenient.

 

Now, as I've said before, I can accept the necessity for using Revan under the circumstances to a point - that's not the problem. The problem is that the masters won't accept the moral responsibility and confess their sins after the fact. That makes them immoral and no better than the Sith, because it's exactly what the Sith would have done in their position.

 

They are only worried about his "disobedience" because he has a history of disobedience. I believe they were correct in not being 100% honest with Revan because of that history. First he is the leader of the group of Jedi's that go to war against the council's decision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but you can't really blame Revan for that choice. As a jedi, it's his nature to wish to protect the innocent. It's only what they have themselves been teaching him to do his entire life... They may not have been happy about his disobedience, but looking at it only as that is exceedinly narrow-minded - they also have to examine his motives and reasons for choosing to defy them in the first place. There might have been good reasons.

 

After all, if the masters are not willing to re-examine their own position, then how will they ever discover if they made a mistake themselves? Or put differently, it's the ancient question of "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" - who watches the watchers? Apparently nobody does, and that's a problem. Zez-Kai Ell even muses on this himself, when the Exile meets him on Nar Shaddaa in K2 - the Exile was a mystery, yet the masters were unwilling to examine it or to examine their own motives.

 

Then he becomes the Dark Lord of the Sith and attempts to take over the republic.

 

Is there any reason why the K1 council should trust in "Lord" Revan's motives? Is there any reason why the council should believe that "Lord" Revan would help them destroy the army he created?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They created a new personality to be totally loyal to their own goals, and yet at the same time they refuse to show trust because of past crimes from before the new pwersonality that themselves created... I guess double standards are better than none... "

[Marka Ragnos]

well, if you go ds in kotor 1 then their mistrust is justified isn't it?

[Jediphile]

well, if you go ds in kotor 1 then their mistrust is justified isn't it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would be based on the choices the character has made in the game up to that point, I guess. We could argue that Revan's choice is not final in the game at that point, but that would be dodging the issue, since the masters would have had to base their choice of what they knew of the "new" Revan at that point.

 

And I still find what Zez-Kai Ell says on Nar Shaddaa in K2 to be very revealing of the masters...

 

Zez-Kai Ell: "I, too, lost a Padawan on Malachor. Not to the battle, but to the alternative - to the teachings that Revan brought from the Unknown Regions. {Quiet}And I was not the only Jedi Master to watch a student turn on them. No, no - they were not to blame, but many of the Order did so - it was a difficult time, a time of strong emotion.Perhaps the Council, perhaps the Order itself had grown arrogant in their teachings. It is easy to cast blame, but it is perhaps time the Order accepted responsibility for their teachings, and their arrogance, and come to recognize that perhaps we are flawed.Not once did I hear one of the Council claim responsibility for Revan, for Exar Kun, for Ulic, for Malak... or for you. Yet... you were the only one who came back from the wars to face our judgment. And rather than attempting to understand why you did what you did, we punished you instead.{Frustrated}Our one chance to see where we had gone wrong, and we cast it aside. And now, that decision has come back to us, and may carry with it, our destruction. Perhaps there is something wrong in us, in our teachings. And though I tried, I could not cause that thought to leave me - so I left the Council. And I was not the only one. That is why many scattered... and why many in the Republic do not trust us. And why we do not trust ourselves. Make no mistake - I am no Jedi. This is the end you see. After this, there will be nothing.{Quietly}And I think it will be for the best. Do you wish to do battle now? I have nothing more to say. It provides no comfort at all, for reasons on which I still must keep secret.Suffice to say redemption was not Revan's choice, and I have never believed those of the Council who attempt to console themselves otherwise for the crime they committed."

[Master_Vrook]

Zez-Kai Ell was always very compassionate and understanding, I was sad to see him go especially.

[Jediphile]

Zez-Kai Ell was always very compassionate and understanding, I was sad to see him go especially.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. In fact, I kind of like Kavar as well. He was a strategist and understood the need to sacrifice in war, but he didn't do it without regret. At least that's my take on him.

 

It's too bad that the ending with the masters is so forced, since both Zez-Kai Ell and Kavar seem to have suddenly lost all the traits that humanized them and made them likable.

 

Vrook, of course, remains the same old grumpy, lovable fool that he always was :D

[master_pendrak]

i found it saddening to see Master's Kavar and Zez-Kai Ell die because both seemed to have regreted the decision of exiling you and genuinely seemed pleased to have you'r return.

 

Vrook i always hated so didnt care that he died, he deserved it for all i care lol

 

what would have been cool would be to have Kavar the last one left after Kreia killed the other two and Exile is put into a situation where he is torn between his two masters.

[Dark Moth]

What upset me the most in K2 was that all 3 masters seemed to express some form of regret of your exile. Kavar and Zez-Kai ell all said how they were glad to have you back, and even Vrook admitted on Dantooine that he may have misjudged you. But when you go to talk to them, they all suddenly turn tails and say that you're still an exile, and you must also leave without the force.

 

From what I had gathered when talking to them, I at least would have thought they would have revoked your PC's banishment, but they didn't. In fact, they seemed to agree with it more than ever, even Zez-kai ell. "Our judgement still remains: exile. But you must leave without your connection to the force." - Master Vrook. At that point, I really felt they had betrayed your character. That's what I hated. I have no idea why Obsidian did that, but I thought it was a poor move on their part.