Speculation on the Jedi Masters

[Jediphile]

1.  If you can think of another plan, fire away.  Otherwise, do not just use quotes like that to try to make your point.  My point is, that while there may have been another far-fetched option, there really was no other that they could have done on the spur of the moment that presented itself.  There really was no other way. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course there was another way - the good guys always win, after all

 

Besides, I already said that Bastila was clearly a threat to the Sith's plans, or Malak wounldn't have bothered to hunt her down, so I've already given one.

 

2.  Your problem is that you see things entirely in gray and refuse to acknowledge that black and white even exist.  Don't forget: black and white have to exist for there to be gray.  Of course it's unjustified, because the Sith are only doing that to accomplish goals of destruction and power-gain for their own ends.  The Jedi did that to save lives and stop a war, not for their own selfish ambition, as the Sith in your example did.  Unless you call saving lives a selfish ambition. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but to the Sith accumulating power is religious doctrine, and if you place your own standards above their's, then you have to accept that others may do the same to you. I don't think any of us would want to try that less traveled road. And why exactly do I not acknowledge that there is no black and white? Obi-Wan himself said, that only the Sith deal in absolutes, so I fail to see my skepticism as proof of my own alleged inability to not see the difference between right and wrong (or black and white, as it were). Instead you seem to argue that the jedi council's decision cannot be questioned because they are the good guys and therefore above suspicion. But I think nobody is above the law and that blind faith is the crutch of fools... YMMV.

 

3.  The problem with "crimes against humanity" is who gets to decide that they are crimes? I knew I shouldn't have mentioned Saddam Hussein (at least *I* didn't bring Bin Laden into this...). What you're suggesting is that if had a method of forcing Saddam Hussein into revealing things about his own people and even using him as a soldier against them, then that is quite alright to do. But who gets to make that choice and on what moral basis? Taking away the rights of the individual is one of the worst things you can do to someone, and most people would rather kill than have it done to them. But not only did they do it to Revan, they also wouldn't entrust him with the truth even *after* he had saved Bastila, helped find the first starmap, etc. Even if you play him as strict LS (which I did the first time), they still won't trust him with the truth. Instead Revan discovers the truth as he travels the galaxy. Now tell me, which is the better time for Revan to discover this - at the enclave where the masters are still present to explain and defend their choice or when Revan is standing right face to face with Malak? I'd say the latter is far more dangerous given the situation. They let Revan go knowing that his past might resurface (since that is what he is using to find the starmaps) and they still won't tell him the truth? If discovered during the quest - as it was - the danger grows much greater that Revan will slip back to the DS of out pure defiance and revenge against their manipulation. So it's not just morally questionable for the masters to do - it's also strategically stupid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

3. So you wouldn't call killing thousands (or in the game, millions) of innocent people a crime? Wow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry for the length here, but I quoted myself so that you or anyone else can tell me just where exactly in the above I said that killing thousands of innocent people wasn't a crime ...

 

You really do see all in gray.  Sure you can't always say what a crime is and what isn't, but for crying out loud in many cases you can!  As for not telling Revan, so you would just tell him right away then he refuses to help them and goes off and reclaims his mantle right away?  Your example is far from convincing. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would have studied him and evaluated him based on the choices of the new personality. And if I found him to be an ethical person, then I would have told him the truth and *asked* for his assistance. It speaks volumes to me that the masters never do this no matter how LS you've played Revan up to that point.

 

4.  Now you're confusing the storyline with the actual game itself.    Don't forget, this is a game, and of course they wouldn't give Bastila to you as a level 20 or even a level 10 Jedi sentinal.  It's called gameplay and stat-building, my friend.  And young and inexperienced doesn't always equal incapable.  Revan was also young and inexperienced when he went off to fight the Mandalorian wars.  The only thing that saved him was his ability to make sacrifices and his gift of strategy.  And, of course, he was strong naturally powerful in the force.  But of course, we all know that Revan fell to the darkside anyway. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Revan was generally around level 6 or 7 when Bastila joined the group, and yet she was only level 4... Not a mere question of game mechanics - Jolee and Juhani were both level 6, for example.

 

And at the risk of repeating myself, "Even the masters say that she is young and inexperienced."

 

5.  Did you even listen to the game?  They couldn't have Bastila running around with Jedi Masters, it would attract too much attention.  And it's not as if the Masters sit around drinking tea all day.  And if you knew anything about the military, the high-ranking officers and Genrals usually are the ones who are needed in other places OTHER than combat.  Their skills are needed behind the front lines, not out on the field.  This situation is very similar.  As I said, they had no other choice.  They were justified. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe I should not have replied to this post, since your tones doesn't suggest to me that you're willing to discuss this...

 

As for planning, I don't see what jedi masters can bring to the table that generals cannot - leave the strategy of the war to people like Dodonna. The jedi masters are far more effective in the war effort if they actually get out there and try to stop the Sith themselves. This is even more relevant if they cannot go with Bastila (and yes, surprised though you may be, I do listen to the game " ), since Malak then won't be hunting for Bastila and instead has to stand against the masters who kill his jedi followers. Even Aragorn and Legolas knew this - it's called diversion.

[darthbass123]

Even if the diversion cost lives?

[Dark Moth]

Of course there was another way - the good guys always win, after all

 

Besides, I already said that Bastila was clearly a threat to the Sith's plans, or Malak wounldn't have bothered to hunt her down, so I've already given one.

 

What do you mean, exactly? And you obviously don't remember the bad guys taking over in Episode III. "

 

Ah, but to the Sith accumulating power is religious doctrine, and if you place your own standards above their's, then you have to accept that others may do the same to you. I don't think any of us would want to try that less traveled road. And why exactly do I not acknowledge that there is no black and white? Obi-Wan himself said, that only the Sith deal in absolutes, so I fail to see my skepticism as proof of my own alleged inability to not see the difference between right and wrong (or black and white, as it were). Instead you seem to argue that the jedi council's decision cannot be questioned because they are the good guys and therefore above suspicion. But I think nobody is above the law and that blind faith is the crutch of fools... YMMV.

 

Exactly. But in my book and many others, gaining power by any means necessary isn't okay. And from what I gathered from your posts, you were always eager to defend the Sith and Revan but eager to condemn the Jedi council. " And of course, your example about the Sith taking over the galaxy using the same means the Jedi council seems to suggest that you don't think either situation is any different, therefore disregarding black and white. My pointis that you can't see in black and white, but to disregard them entirely is plain foolish. And I'm not saying that the Jedi were justified just because they were the good guys. They were, but I'm taking everything into consideration: circumstance, motives, objectives, etc. You have to count everything. And that is why I said they were justified. And for another example, I didn't think the council was completely justified in their actions in K2, even though they were the 'good' guys.

 

Sorry for the length here, but I quoted myself so that you or anyone else can tell me just where exactly in the above I said that killing thousands of innocent people wasn't a crime ...

 

I know you didn't. But I gave you that example to show you that sometimes it's easy to know what a crime against humanity is.

 

I would have studied him and evaluated him based on the choices of the new personality. And if I found him to be an ethical person, then I would have told him the truth and *asked* for his assistance. It speaks volumes to me that the masters never do this no matter how LS you've played Revan up to that point.

 

Even the most LS people can fall to the DS. Revan was the same way. How could they have known he wouldn't have done the same thing again? They were in no position to tell him. And as I said, if Revan was DS, then they were even more justified.

 

Revan was generally around level 6 or 7 when Bastila joined the group, and yet she was only level 4... Not a mere question of game mechanics - Jolee and Juhani were both level 6, for example.

 

And at the risk of repeating myself, "Even the masters say that she is young and inexperienced."

 

And I'll say it again: inexperienced doesn't always mean incapable. Besides, you fail to acknowledge that you got Bastila earlier in the game than Juhani or Jolee. Besides, you got Carth at level 1 or 2, so are you going to say that he was very young and inexperienced? If you're going to use character levels to justify that, than Carth is even more inexperienced than Bastila. "

 

Maybe I should not have replied to this post, since your tones doesn't suggest to me that you're willing to discuss this...

 

As for planning, I don't see what jedi masters can bring to the table that generals cannot - leave the strategy of the war to people like Dodonna. The jedi masters are far more effective in the war effort if they actually get out there and try to stop the Sith themselves. This is even more relevant if they cannot go with Bastila (and yes, surprised though you may be, I do listen to the game  "  ), since Malak then won't be hunting for Bastila and instead has to stand against the masters who kill his jedi followers. Even Aragorn and Legolas knew this - it's called diversion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did Dodonna head the Jedi order? No. The Republic officers do not command the Jedi, the Jedi council does. Same way the Army officers don't have control over the Air Force, or Policeman having control over the Fire Department. And what exactly do you mean in your example? Malak would still be hunting Bastila regardless if Masters went with her or not. And as I said, it would only be easier for Malak to notice them. If that were to happen, he'd probably use even more force to catch them and also be able to find them more easily. Besides, if all go out and do everything themselves, then the Jedi are left leaderless while their leaders are out playing war.

[darthbass123]

But if the Jedi did go with Bastilla then it would be alot harder to capture her. Malak may be powerful but against lets say 2 Masters He would be powerless.

[Dark Moth]

But if the Jedi did go with Bastilla then it would be alot harder to capture her. Malak may be powerful but against lets say 2 Masters He would be powerless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but if they drew attention, Malak might be able to track their movements and figure out their plans. Don't forget, they were hunting for the Star Forge and couldn't risk Malak knowing that they knew about it. If they had two Jedi Masters guarding them, then Malak would figure out that they were on a very important mission, and do everything in his power to stop it. Who know, he might send in an army of Sith just to capture your squad or even blow up the planet you're on. In the game, all he sends are a few dark Jedi after you, and they are really easy to handle.

[darthbass123]

what if they had the power (like Kriea) to be invisible to others.

[Dark Moth]

what if they had the power (like Kriea) to be invisible to others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kreia had the ability to "mask her presence" from the Jedi. That's how she was able to avoid Atris, and Atris never even saw Kreia in person. And even still, the Sith have spies, and it would be hard to not notice Jedi Masters parading around a planet, esp. one like Tatooine or even Korriban! Information travels. And don't forget about Korriban. If the Sith saw Jedi Masters there, then the effort would really have been lost.

[darthbass123]

I admit that it would be difficult for the masters to do it on Korriban but Bastilla did it by hiding in the ebon hawk. and it would be easy for them to hide on tatooine because of all of the life forms. mainly the jawas and sand people.

[Jediphile]

Of course there was another way - the good guys always win, after all

 

Besides, I already said that Bastila was clearly a threat to the Sith's plans, or Malak wounldn't have bothered to hunt her down, so I've already given one.

 

What do you mean, exactly? And you obviously don't remember the bad guys taking over in Episode III. "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only for a time, and they didn't even get all the jedi. Besides, there were holes in the plot IMHO. I mean, if the Sith are so dangerous and they know they are separated (since Anakin went to Mustafar), then why do Yoda and Obi-Wan promptly go, "hey, this looks dangerous - let's split up" - Palpatine is now alone on Coruscant, so you both go get him! Then you can worry about Anakin later together. But I digress...

 

As for alternate ways to fight Malak, they are certainly there. Note how the Kolto on Manaan is said to be of vital importance to the war effort for both sides, yet when you get there, you never meet a single jedi, but there are plenty of dark jedi around... Am I the only one to find that odd? A jedi consular might have made a difference in the stand-off (in fact, one - Jolee - did in the murder case), so why hasn't the council sent someone? If Manaan had sided with the Republic, then it would have been a severe blow to the Sith war effort, yet there is not even a single jedi there to try and expose the plotting that it is painfully obvious that the Sith will try...

 

Or Korriban. Here is an academy training dark jedi to be used in the war effort against the Republic. So why not go there in a preemptive strike to stop that source? Sent some jedi masters and wipe the place clean. But no...

 

Exactly.  But in my book and many others, gaining power by any means necessary isn't okay.  And from what I gathered from your posts, you were always eager to defend the Sith and Revan but eager to condemn the Jedi council.    "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" - just because I point fingers at the jedi council does not automatically that I side with the Sith. I don't, because I can't - their acts are immoral and I would not defend them even if I wanted to. But you're missing the point that the Sith are not at the discussion here - we know that they are not nice people. That doesn't make the jedi good by default, however, nor does it mean that the jedi cannot or do not do wrong things. As I recall, even Zez-Kai Ell admits that the masters cannot fault the students who followed Revan for their choice.

 

And of course, your example about the Sith taking over the galaxy using the same means the Jedi council seems to suggest that you don't think either situation is any different, therefore disregarding black and white.  My pointis that you can't see in black and white, but to disregard them entirely is plain foolish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do see the black and white. If I did not, then I could scarcely argue that the masters are also at fault morally. My point that they are equally to blame if they embrace the same sort of tactics as the sith seems to be lost on you, however.

 

And I'm not saying that the Jedi were justified just because they were the good guys.  They were, but I'm taking everything into consideration: circumstance, motives, objectives, etc.  You have to count everything.  And that is why I said they were justified.  And for another example, I didn't think the council was completely justified in their actions in K2, even though they were the 'good' guys. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To me this underscores the point that you seem unable to look at the matter objectively. Why? Because the masters were actually more justified in that choice than in the one they made for Revan. In the first you have Revan, and you can (or perhaps must, but that's still an open question) use him to save the Republic. But whether you do or not, the people will live on, even were it under sith rule and with the jedi in hiding.

 

In K2, however,you have the Exile, a being with the power to destroy the force and perhaps all life itself. He doesn't even realize it, he has set incredibly destructive forces free against the galaxy, he leeches the lifeforce away from others, and he doesn't seem to have any sort of control over his ability. At any time, his ability could mean utter death to all life everywhere for all we know, so what to do? We cut him off from the force so that he will no longer hurt others with his uncontrolled ability.

 

Now, in both cases you have a situation where you sacrifice the individual for the greater good, except that in the second the "punishment" is much less severe - losing the ability to use the force is nothing next to being forced into unwitting slavery to serve your enemies and then used against your own - and the danger is also much greater - destruction to the force and perhaps all life everywhere as opposed to the "mere" fall of the Republic...

 

Clearly the sentence is harsher for Revan in a situation where "only" the Republic is at stake, whereas the Exile will merely lose his connection to the force for the greater good of preserving all life and the force. The argument that Revan deserves it for his crimes is invalid since you have taken away his personality and his memory of it all - he has become a new person now and so cannot be held accountable for former crimes.

 

Even the most LS people can fall to the DS.  Revan was the same way.  How could they have known he wouldn't have done the same thing again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You cannot sentence or punish a man for what he might do. By that reasoning, we should all be punished for the potential crimes we might commit, since we may all turn to violent crime under extreme circumstances. You can ask any lawyer or judge and get the same answer (I should hope...).

 

As I said before, if Revan was leaning toward DS on his arrival to Dantooine, then I might be likely to agree, but playing LS has no bearing, and so it's a moot point.

 

And I'll say it again: inexperienced doesn't always mean incapable.  Besides, you fail to acknowledge that you got Bastila earlier in the game than Juhani or Jolee.  Besides, you got Carth at level 1 or 2, so are you going to say that he was very young and inexperienced?  If you're going to use character levels to justify that, than Carth is even more inexperienced than Bastila.  "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but to use your own reasoning, Revan was only level 2 when he met Carth, so that would be relevant. It does not apply to Bastila, however, since you had long since passed level 4 when she joins

 

Did Dodonna head the Jedi order?  No.  The Republic officers do not command the Jedi, the Jedi council does.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is the jedi council on Dantooine? No, it's on Coruscant. The masters on Dantooine even admit that to Revan. And besides, you talked about generals and warleaders.

 

  Same way the Army officers don't have control over the Air Force, or Policeman having control over the Fire Department. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Whereas the jedi do command the Republic fleets or their movements during war...

 

And what exactly do you mean in your example?  Malak would still be hunting Bastila regardless if Masters went with her or not.  And as I said, it would only be easier for Malak to notice them.  If that were to happen, he'd probably use even more force to catch them and also be able to find them more easily.  Besides, if all go out and do everything themselves, then the Jedi are left leaderless while their leaders are out playing war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I said "diversion". Okay, Bastila and Revan go to find the starmaps so the StarForge can be located. None of the masters go with them because that will make it more likely that Malak will detect them and stop them. So instead the masters can:

 

Option 1: Sit around sipping tea on Dantooine until Malak finds his prey (Bastila and Revan) or attacks the masters on Dantooine

 

Option 2: Go to Alderaan, Onderon, Corellia, or wherever the frontlines are, so that Malak will be drawn to their presence there instead of being drawn to Revan and Bastila. Besides, on the frontlines they might even serve to save some of those Republic lives they claim to be so concerned about...

 

So, which did the masters choose...? "

[Ulicus]

By Jediphile

 

And again, no:

 

GOTO: "Revan did not intend to destroy the Republic. He deliberately left the infrastructure of many planets intact - and many military production facilities. I believe that by whatever means he used to build his armada, he recognized that it was somehow a limited source - or that he was only willing to use it to a point.My prediction is that whatever production facility was being employed, it carried a price that Revan perceived as detrimental to the goals of the Sith. And that is why Revan left many military production facilities in the Republic intact.Unlike Revan, Malak demonstrated no concern for the future of the Republic in his attacks. His stratagems were painfully obvious, intending to crush all resistance, everywhere. There was little thought beyond the complete destruction of anything that opposed him.{Irritated}He left quite a mess. I'm still trying to assess all the damage.Between the two, I would have preferred Revan rule the galaxy. He had foresight in his conquest, a subtlety that Malak did not possess.That is what occupies my calculations as well. I believe that Revan saw a war on another front that we did not, or saw the value in keeping a strong military force."

 

It helps to read what others write in the discussion, particularly when I've already gone through the trouble of putting the important bit in bold.

 

Not that I'm in the habit of butting into other people's arguments, and I honestly don't mean to be rude, but it seems that you're the one who hasn't been reading what Mothman was saying... the only fact that quote presents is that Revan left miltary facilities intact. The rest is Go-To's speculation and opinion based on that fact.

 

To put the important bit in bold:

 

Goto: I believe that Revan saw....

 

The majority of the statements made by characters are just speculation on their part, based on facts. You quote Disciple (and any other character that backs you up), as if suggesting that his word is gospel, yet he also states that the "Jedi Council were able to persuade Revan around to their way of thinking, and to have a change of heart", which is, to quote Master Vrook, "indisputable proof" that not everything the character's say is fact but merely based in fact.

 

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.

 

Having said that, I think it is very probable that what the opinions presented to us on Revan are the truth (why else would Obsidian go to the trouble of having so many people tell us), but the point stands.

 

(If that had already been cleared up then sorry for reitorating, I just hadn't seen your point contested and had the urge to do so)

 

I think it is safe to assume that at the start of the Mandalorian Wars, Revan didn't know about the Ancient Sith Empire still being around - he just rushed into battle to protect the Republic.

 

At some point *during* the wars, he uncovered Malachor V and the continued existance of the ASE, then decided to utilize the sith teachings himself in order to protect the Republic.

 

Somewhere down the line, due in no small part to the dark side I'd wager, "protect the Republic" got confused with "protect the Republic's infrastructure yet destroy the Republic's ideals and supplant them with my own". Simply put, "his goals became tainted, his ideals became twisted"... which is exactly what Zhar said in the first place. A "fool" indeed...

 

By Jediphile

 

 

[Dark Moth]

One other flaw with GO-TO's quote is that it condradicts most of what we've seen. GO-TO was not Revan, he wasn't even human, yet GO-TO says that Revan did not intend to destroy the Republic, as if he knew his motives. Revan only left certain structures intact so he could have something to use to protect his own empire and fight the ASE. And it's also inconsistant with the fact that Revan was attacking many infastructures within the Republic, inlcuding the Jedi. This is partly due to the fact that K2 tried to make Revan into a hero no matter what, and I think it only ended up making things even more confusing and self-contradictory.

[Jediphile]

Not that I'm in the habit of butting into other people's arguments, and I honestly don't mean to be rude, but it seems that you're the one who hasn't been reading what Mothman was saying... the only fact that quote presents is that Revan left miltary facilities intact.  The rest is Go-To's speculation and opinion based on that fact.

 

To put the important bit in bold:

 

Goto: I believe  that Revan saw....

 

The majority of the statements made by characters are just speculation on their part, based on facts.  You quote Disciple (and any other character that backs you up), as if suggesting that his word is gospel, yet he also states that the "Jedi Council were able to persuade Revan around to their way of thinking, and to have a change of heart", which is, to quote Master Vrook, "indisputable proof" that not everything the character's say is fact  but merely based  in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of course it's all speculation, and I have never said otherwise. When I restated the bit you quoted, it was because I had, by then, quoted GOTO thrice without Mothman acknowledging the point that Revan might - note, *might* - have made a conscious sacrifice to embrance the dark side to save the Republic from the true Sith. I didn't not say, however, that this was a fact.

 

Because you're right so far - we don't know what Revan's motives were. We still don't. But that's also the point - nor do we know that he just fell to the dark side because he was corrupted. We don't know that either.

 

Now, when we discuss these things, how do we go about doing it? Am I not permitted in using quotes from the game to support my conclusions because they are speculative? If not, then what am I to base my conclusions on?

 

Instead we can have have a poll where everybody just says what they think happened or will happen. I do not find that to be a very positive thing, since it won't lead us to any conclusions, as far as I can tell. YMMV...

 

I have quoted Kreia, HK-47, and GOTO all echoing (you know you love that word, eh? ) similar thoughts on the subject. As you say, the Disciple does too. Am I not to include this in my analysis because it's speculative? In that case there can be no analysis or conclusion, because the game communicates to us only through what the characters say. It does not make my points true, no, but it is more convincing to quote three or four characters for making suggestions that support a conclusion than it is to have one or none.

 

I do fail to see, though, how I suggest that the Disciple's word is gospel. He says what he says, and I will consider that. I do not find him to be as untruthful as Kreia often is, so I will be more skeptical of what she says, like when I doubt her for saying that Arren Kae was exiled for having a child...

 

 

At some point *during* the wars, he uncovered Malachor V and the continued existance of the ASE, then decided to utilize the sith teachings himself in order to protect the Republic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But what do you base that assumption on? We really have no idea when Revan learned this, and some of Kreia's comments suggested to me that he knew before this. But no, we don't know that. We also don't know that he didn't, though.

 

Somewhere down the line, due in no small part to the dark side I'd wager, "protect the Republic" got confused with "protect the Republic's infrastructure yet destroy the Republic's ideals and supplant them with my own". Simply put, "his goals became tainted, his ideals became twisted"... which is exactly what Zhar said in the first place.  A "fool" indeed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I'd tend to agree more with that. Revan showed little restraint in his conquests. He did leave the potential behind for the later stand against the true Sith, but we don't know if that was to save the Republic - which I doubt - or to protect his new empire. I even consider it possible that he wanted his own powerful empire in time for the stand, so that he could himself conquer the true Sith empire and add it to his own, learn its secrets for himself, and grow even more powerful.

 

I didn't like how my relationship with the masters ended - but I didn't like any of the masters either - they all seemed generic and unworthy of the title.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I've said elsewhere, the meeting where they sentence the Exile is hurt by bad writing, because they don't explain the matter well. Their decision is actually quite understandable, but they don't give you time, as a player, to absorb the validity of the point they make, and so the masters come off as incredibly unfair and judgmental.

 

But I must say that apart from the last meeting, I liked the masters, apart from Atris and Vrook. I liked Zez-Kai Ell best, because he demonstrates true introspection and regret over some of their choices. I think I would have really liked Vash too, from what we know or can find out about her. Kavar is more of a warrior type, but I find he has some very redeeming qualities that humanize him.

 

Atris is just a b**** topped only by Kreia, and Vrook is simply a grumpy old fool, though...

 

If only the meeting with the masters hadn't been so rushed...

 

Silly IMHO. Better for Vrook, Zhar and Dorak to have died in Malak's attack.  I mean, we learn in KotOR II that every one of them *survived*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Did we? I thought they only mentioned Vrook and Zhar in K2, suggesting that Dorak might have died in Malak's attack. But I don't really remember...

 

(at least until Katarr) - why bother if you were just going to kill them in another planetary assault? Poor guys

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Simple - because we, as players, care more about masters we met in K1 than some generic faceless master we hear about having died in K2. They probably didn't kill Vrook because it would just have been cheered by too many - sort of it Lucas had killed Jar-Jar on screen in the movies

 

And I'd have liked the Jedi masters to have seemed wise and powerful - for their viewpoint to have been an acceptable position - instead the Exile's just able to walk all over them because they're nobs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Personally I liked them. Except Atris... and Vrook.

 

Despite this, I don't think the masters were the enemy, nor acting out of any reason other than what they thought was for the best - it's just that what they thought was the for the best was wrong.... I'm getting pretty sick of all the "Jedi have always been complacent and arrogant" stuff that's infected the EU.

 

The Jedi were supposed to have only become complacent and arrogant in the years that the Sith were believed to be destroyed, it is meant to be a *new* thing in centuries leading up to the Prequel Era - this, "flaw that is more and more common among Jedi"... instead it seems that they've been idiotic for thousands of years. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I guess it's partly to underscore the idea that contentment is dangerous, because you risk being obvious to the dangers around you. Besides, if the masters did everything right, there should be no need for your own character to grow powerful and save (or conquer) the galaxy, so there are strong plot reasons for it too.

[GhostofAnakin]

Revan only left certain structures intact so he could have something to use to protect his own empire and fight the ASE.  And it's also inconsistant with the fact that Revan was attacking many infastructures within the Republic, inlcuding the Jedi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you know what "infrastrutures" are? I'm not being snide, I'm just curious. Could you give examples of which you refer to that Revan attacked?

 

Because it was Malak who went around blowing up planets. Revan didn't attack any key MILITARY targets. Revan spurred the Jedi into action, he didn't obliterate them all. Oh, and attacking the Jedi wasn't attacking the Republic's infrastructure. It was attacking those Jedi that Revan felt were going to remain inactive. He made the Jedi become warriors, rather than pacifists.

[Dark Moth]

Revan only left certain structures intact so he could have something to use to protect his own empire and fight the ASE.  And it's also inconsistant with the fact that Revan was attacking many infastructures within the Republic, inlcuding the Jedi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Do you know what "infrastrutures" are? I'm not being snide, I'm just curious. Could you give examples of which you refer to that Revan attacked?

 

Because it was Malak who went around blowing up planets. Revan didn't attack any key MILITARY targets. Revan spurred the Jedi into action, he didn't obliterate them all. Oh, and attacking the Jedi wasn't attacking the Republic's infrastructure. It was attacking those Jedi that Revan felt were going to remain inactive. He made the Jedi become warriors, rather than pacifists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually, I shouldn't have used that phrase. What I meant was that Revan meant to destroy many factors of the Republic that made it what it was. For instance, we know that Revan was attacking the Jedi order. He used places like Malachor V and the Star Forge to break Jedi's will and turn them into Sith/Dark Jedi. Revan knew that converting an enemy is the best way to defeat them, and he did. But this is still effectively destroying the Jedi. The Jedi were one of the defining characteristics of the Republic.

 

Revan also meant to eventually replace the very government of the Republic with his own; an empire which he probably viewed as 'strong', or at least strong enough to counter the Sith. While this doesn't involve destroying any worlds, it is still in effect destroying the Republic. Remember: Sidious didn't destroy any worlds, yet he still effectively destroyed the Republic and replaced it with the Galactic Empire. Don't forget, the Republic is more than just the worlds themselves, it is also the power structure behind them.

 

That is why I say GO-TO's quote doesn't make sense and contradicts what we've seen already. And as I said, GO-TO wasn't Revan, he wasn't even associated with him, so he can't really know what Revan's motives were.

[Ulicus]

One other flaw with GO-TO's quote is that it condradicts most of what we've seen.  GO-TO was not Revan, he wasn't even human, yet GO-TO says that Revan did not intend to destroy the Republic, as if he knew his motives.  Revan only left certain structures intact so he could have something to use to protect his own empire and fight the ASE.  And it's also inconsistant with the fact that Revan was attacking many infastructures within the Republic, inlcuding the Jedi.  This is partly due to the fact that K2 tried to make Revan into a hero no matter what, and I think it only ended up making things even more confusing and self-contradictory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the problem is people are to quick to *assume* what KotOR II did was turn Revan into a hero no matter what. It didn't... he just came across to me as a corrupted Jedi turned Sith who saught to impose his own view on the universe. In fact his goals were very similar to Palpatine's, who according to the visual dictionary doesn't see himself as evil but as a saviour who has restored "order and unity" to the galaxy... sound familar? The only difference is that Revan saught to bring this about through war, Palpatine through politics.

 

I hated the name "Jedi Civil War" however, as it gave all the wrong connotations - and if it had been a good choice of name, the developers wouldn't have had to have every single character explaining why it was called the Jedi Civil War, nor have options for your character to voice their confusion... why "the Second Sith War" couldn't make do I'll never know... in fact, it's almost enough to make me pretend KotOR II didn't happen. *Sigh*

 

Jedi Civil War.... I have to tell myself that the main reason it's called that is because it was a galactic Civil War that was started by a fallen Jedi, as opposed to it being an actual "Jedi Civil War"... it's made worse by the fact you have Jedi Masters who know full well the difference between Jedi and Sith mouthing off about it as well... it wasn't even a conflict restricted to Jedi and Sith!!! It was "Sith armada vs the Republic"... not matter what KotOR II says to try and justify the name change *cries*

[GhostofAnakin]

Jedi Civil War.... I have to tell myself that the main reason it's called that is because it was a galactic Civil War that was started by a fallen Jedi, as opposed to it being an actual "Jedi Civil War"... it's made worse by the fact you have Jedi Masters who know full well the difference between Jedi and Sith mouthing off about it as well... it wasn't even a conflict restricted to Jedi and Sith!!! It was "Sith armada vs the Republic"...  not matter what KotOR II says to try and justify the name change *cries*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, it was mentioned by various non-Force users (although Atton became one) that the reason why it was called that is because the galaxy of non Force users saw Jedi and Sith as the same thing. To them, everyone who used the Force was a "Jedi" so they only saw it as Jedi fighting with Jedi.

[Jediphile]

Actually, I shouldn't have used that phrase.  What I meant was that Revan meant to destroy many factors of the Republic that made it what it was.  For instance, we know that Revan was attacking the Jedi order.  He used places like Malachor V and the Star Forge to break Jedi's will and turn them into Sith/Dark Jedi.  Revan knew that converting an enemy is the best way to defeat them, and he did.  But this is still effectively destroying the Jedi.  The Jedi were one of the defining characteristics of the Republic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So he sacrificed the Republic's defenders to save the Republic itself. Somehow that doesn't look much worse to me than using Revan to destroy the Sith... Besides, what would the jedi defend if the Republic fell? As GoA said before - he turned the pacifistic jedi into warriors... The reason seems rather obvious to me.

 

Revan also meant to eventually replace the very government of the Republic with his own; an empire which he probably viewed as 'strong', or at least strong enough to counter the Sith.  While this doesn't involve destroying any worlds, it is still in effect destroying the Republic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This is pure conjecture - we have no knowledge of what sort of regime Revan would have set up in the Republic's place.

 

Remember: Sidious didn't destroy any worlds, yet he still effectively destroyed the Republic and replaced it with the Galactic Empire.  Don't forget, the Republic is more than just the worlds themselves, it is also the power structure behind them. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sidious didn't destoy any worlds... *cough* Alderaan *cough*... Sorry, really got to do something about that cyber-throat

 

Still to suggest that Sidious didn't destroy the Republic is a pretty big stretch to me - Sidious *annihilated* the Republic. And how did you say yourself above - "But this is still effectively destroying the Jedi. The Jedi were one of the defining characteristics of the Republic." Great - you just contradicted yourself in one post "

 

That is why I say GO-TO's quote doesn't make sense and contradicts what we've seen already.  And as I said, GO-TO wasn't Revan, he wasn't even associated with him, so he can't really know what Revan's motives were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How does historians today know what Napoleon's motives were - or Hiltler's or Stalin's for that matter - they didn't associate with any of them...

 

GOTO analyzes the situation and makes conclusions. As a droid he has several advantages when he does so. For one, as a droid he has no emotional attachments to "Revan having to be evil for attacking this or that world" or "Revan must be good, since he destroyed the StarForge and overthrew Malak". GOTO is a cold anc calculating machine with all the humanity or compassion of rock, but that and his cold intelligence also means that his analysis is very objective. I wouldn't cast it aside so easily.

[Ulicus]

Now, when we discuss these things, how do we go about doing it? Am I not permitted in using quotes from the game to support my conclusions because they are speculative? If not, then what am I to base my conclusions on?

 

I don't see any problem with it - I was just contesting that when Mothman said, "all you can draw from Go-To's statement is this" you seemed to reply with (wtte of) "No, Go-To said this this and this, and from this we can see that Revan did this" and I didn't support the stance. *Shrug* It's late, I was skim reading this thread.

 

I have quoted Kreia, HK-47, and GOTO all echoing (you know you love that word, eh? ) similar thoughts on the subject. As you say, the Disciple does too. Am I not to include this in my analysis because it's speculative? In that case there can be no analysis or conclusion, because the game communicates to us only through what the characters say. It does not make my points true, no, but it is more convincing to quote three or four characters for making suggestions that support a conclusion than it is to have one or none.

 

Not at all - I just got the impression you were stating it as fact when it was spectulation. Essentially that's all I was pointing out - you'll notice I actually agree with what you were saying. "Having said that, it's probable" or whatever it was I was saying.

 

I do fail to see, though, how I suggest that the Disciple's word is gospel.

 

Honestly? I wanted to build up towards a disciple/gospel bible joke then lost interest.

 

But what do you base that assumption on? We really have no idea when Revan learned this, and some of Kreia's comments suggested to me that he knew before this. But no, we don't know that. We also don't know that he didn't, though.

 

Based on what I took from the game. Just an assumption after all.

 

"I think it is safe...."

 

Nothing Kreia said made me think Revan knew of the Sith menace before the Mandalorian Wars started. However, it's not entirely unlikely that he knew about it before he joined the Mandalorian Wars. He may very well have already become the Dark Lord of the Sith in the time between the intial Mandalorian attacks and his rebellion against the Council. We don't know when exactly Revan went to war after all. A week after the attacks? A month? A year?

 

If you're suggesting that Revan might have always intended the Mandalorian Wars to be a means to convert Jedi to his *real* cause, then I can find no flaw.

 

 

Yes, I'd tend to agree more with that. Revan showed little restraint in his conquests. He did leave the potential behind for the later stand against the true Sith, but we don't know if that was to save the Republic - which I doubt - or to protect his new empire. I even consider it possible that he wanted his own powerful empire in time for the stand, so that he could himself conquer the true Sith empire and add it to his own, learn its secrets for himself, and grow even more powerful.

 

*nods eagerly* There are too many "Revan was a good guy" subscribers these days.

 

As I've said elsewhere, the meeting where they sentence the Exile is hurt by bad writing, because they don't explain the matter well.

 

Therein lies my problem with it.

 

But I must say that apart from the last meeting, I liked the masters, apart from Atris and Vrook. I liked Zez-Kai Ell best, because he demonstrates true introspection and regret over some of their choices. I think I would have really liked Vash too, from what we know or can find out about her. Kavar is more of a warrior type, but I find he has some very redeeming qualities that humanize him.

 

I thought the voice-acting was poor and the scenes featuring them (in particular the Council Trial scene) were badly done. They didn't seem to have any "special qualities" that made them Masters. Then again, no-one in the films aside from Yoda and Obi-Wan in "Old Ben" guise do. I don't know how half these Jedi can preach a code that they themselves don't follow, especially when TWO in partiuclar (Atris and Vrook) are council members. It's just TOO hypocritical for me. TOO idiotic.

 

If only the meeting with the masters hadn't been so rushed...

 

As well as the rest of the game. It had moments where it far outshone KotOR I, and the gameplay was a significant improvement.

 

Did we? I thought they only mentioned Vrook and Zhar in K2, suggesting that Dorak might have died in Malak's attack. But I don't really remember...

 

Yeah, one of the Jedi masters (forget which) definately mentioned Zhar, Dorak AND Vandar as having fallen on Katarr.

 

Simple - because we, as players, care more about masters we met in K1 than some generic faceless master we hear about having died in K2. They probably didn't kill Vrook because it would just have been cheered by too many - sort of it Lucas had killed Jar-Jar on screen in the movies

 

Most people already thought Vrook was dead. It's one thing not to kill Jar-Jar, it's entirely another to bring him back from the grave.

 

At the end of the day, I didn't particularly care about any of the masters from KotOR either. They seemed pretty "average" in themselves, and Vandar was just too cynical a rip-off. By bringing them back despite their "presumed death", it just makes the galaxy seem a much smaller place.

 

Well, I guess it's partly to underscore the idea that contentment is dangerous, because you risk being obvious to the dangers around you. Besides, if the masters did everything right, there should be no need for your own character to grow powerful and save (or conquer) the galaxy, so there are strong plot reasons for it too.

 

I don't ask that they do everything right, just not so much wrong....

[Jediphile]

I think the problem is people are to quick to *assume* what KotOR II did was turn Revan into a hero no matter what.  It didn't...  he just came across to me as a corrupted Jedi turned Sith who saught to impose his own view on the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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...

 

In fact his goals were very similar to Palpatine's, who according to the visual dictionary doesn't see himself as evil but as a saviour who has restored "order and unity" to the galaxy... sound familar? The only difference is that Revan saught to bring this about through war, Palpatine through politics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

 

I hated the name "Jedi Civil War" however, as it gave all the wrong connotations - and if it had been a good choice of name, the developers wouldn't have had to have every single character explaining why it was called the Jedi Civil War, nor have options for your character to voice their confusion... why "the Second Sith War" couldn't make do I'll never know... in fact, it's almost enough to make me pretend KotOR II didn't happen.  *Sigh*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Jedi did fight in the war.

 

2. It was former jedi against current jedi. Or

 

2a. Dark jedi vs. jedi

 

3. Most people don't distinguish much between jedi and sith, so...

 

4. The jedi that turned sith were the former jedi students that the jedi masters had forbidden to go to war against the Mandalorians and so forced them to either submit totally to the masters orders and deny their training to protect the innocent or else to rebel against their masters. No outside Sith influence there - the masters created the conflict themselves, so it's fair to assign it internally to the jedi order.

 

You seem to like the idea that just because the jedi that followed Revan and Malak because Sith, that suddenly means that they were never jedi or that the masters did not share responsibility for what became of them. This is a view not even shared by all the masters...

 

Zez-Kai Ell: "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."

[Ulicus]

Jedi Civil War.... I have to tell myself that the main reason it's called that is because it was a galactic Civil War that was started by a fallen Jedi, as opposed to it being an actual "Jedi Civil War"... it's made worse by the fact you have Jedi Masters who know full well the difference between Jedi and Sith mouthing off about it as well... it wasn't even a conflict restricted to Jedi and Sith!!! It was "Sith armada vs the Republic"...  not matter what KotOR II says to try and justify the name change *cries*

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, it was mentioned by various non-Force users (although Atton became one) that the reason why it was called that is because the galaxy of non Force users saw Jedi and Sith as the same thing. To them, everyone who used the Force was a "Jedi" so they only saw it as Jedi fighting with Jedi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, except they conviently forgot that it was a gigantic fleet made up of primarly non-Force sensitives, conquering planets belonging to the Republic - not the Jedi. It also contradicts every instance we see of how non-Force users refer to the war during KotOR 1. By the common people, it was most definately seen as a war *against the Republic*, not the Jedi - though the Jedi faught for the Republic.

 

That's the problem - they're happy to say "its the common person's perspective" in one instance (Jedi/Sith confusion), yet then discard it in the other - sure, the *real* war might have been against the Jedi, but the galaxy as large didn't see it like that.

 

And *nothing* can excuse the fact that Jedi Masters would also refer to it as the Jedi Civil War... I mean, aside from the fact that that was its official name whether they liked it or not... goddamit I hate it when I defeat my own points.

 

Anyway, if it had been a good choice of name - such explanation would not have been needed.

 

End of story.

 

I posted a huge rant about it the week the game came out- if Chris Avellone couldn't change my opinion, then neither can you I understand the reasons for the name, I just think the reasons are flawed.

 

One excuse given was:

 

The opening crawl says that it is a "Jedi battle fleet" engaging over Taris, not a Republic fleet.

 

Yet, by that logic, Luke Skywalker was the leader of the Rebel alliance because the opening crawl of Empire said, "Luke Skywalker, the leader of a small band of rebels", or that peace and justice would be restored to the galaxy because the Death Star would be blown up : "Custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore peace and justice to the galaxy" says the opening crawl of ANH... the legend just gives you a feel for what's happening, not the actual facts and stats.

 

KotOR I constantly pushes that it is the Republic under attack, that the Sith invaded the Republic, that the Sith are conquering the Republic. The Jedi are involved purely by default.

 

The Second Sith War sounds better and has the less syllables than the Jedi Civil War. Anyway, I *can* accept the name (by using my interpretation), I just don't like it.

[Dark Moth]

So he sacrificed the Republic's defenders to save the Republic itself. Somehow that doesn't look much worse to me than using Revan to destroy the Sith... Besides, what would the jedi defend if the Republic fell? As GoA said before - he turned the pacifistic jedi into warriors... The reason seems rather obvious to me.

 

The Jedi were always warriors, he didn't 'turn' them into warriors, he merely spurred them into action. Then he goes off and kills/converts them. " He wasn't saving the Republic by killing the very people who defended it. I don't see how you can even make that conclusion.

 

This is pure conjecture - we have no knowledge of what sort of regime Revan would have set up in the Republic's place.

 

It's not hard to know that he was going to do that. You can easily gather that from both games. And you assume that Revan would destoy some worlds in the Republic but leave the government alone? Even still, you can't say that Revan wasn't going to replace the power structure behind the Republic with something else, and I think it's even more rediculous to say he would have just set up another democratic regime. You're going to conquer the Republic only to hand it over to someone else, or for that matter, a bunch of people? Just think about it. It's only logic.

 

Sidious didn't destoy any worlds... *cough* Alderaan *cough*... Sorry, really got to do something about that cyber-throat

 

He did NOT destroy any worlds to TAKE OVER the Republic. Did you even see the movie? That's what I'm referring to. Read my posts.

 

Still to suggest that Sidious didn't destroy the Republic is a pretty big stretch to me - Sidious *annihilated* the Republic. And how did you say yourself above - "But this is still effectively destroying the Jedi.  The Jedi were one of the defining characteristics of the Republic." Great - you just contradicted yourself in one post  "

 

I said that Sidious destroyed the Republic. I never contradicted myself. Read my freakin posts, for crying out loud, or don't respond at all. <_<

 

How does historians today know what Napoleon's motives were - or Hiltler's or Stalin's for that matter - they didn't associate with any of them...

 

GOTO analyzes the situation and makes conclusions. As a droid he has several advantages when he does so. For one, as a droid he has no emotional attachments to "Revan having to be evil for attacking this or that world" or "Revan must be good, since he destroyed the StarForge and overthrew Malak". GOTO is a cold anc calculating machine with all the humanity or compassion of rock, but that and his cold intelligence also means that his analysis is very objective. I wouldn't cast it aside so easily.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Historians can know the motives of many historical people, but this is a different case. GO-TO is a droid who never never knew Revan or associated with him. To boot, he had nothing else to work with but Revan's actions. The only evidence he gives was that little blurb about leaving some structures intact. That's it. The evidence he gives for his analyisis is weak at best, to say anything other than that would be making up stuff that's not in the game.

 

And as Ulicus said, you can't call it a Jedi Civil war because once the Jedi leaves the order and embraces the Sith, they are no longer Jedi. And once again, it wasn't just fought by Jedi either.

 

And please tell me how you gathered from Kreia that Revan somehow knew about the Mandalorians before Malachor V, because I never gathered that from her.

Edited August 13, 2005 by Mothman

[Jediphile]

The Jedi were always warriors, he didn't 'turn' them into warriors, he merely spurred them into action.  Then he goes off and kills/converts them.  "  He wasn't saving the Republic by killing the very people who defended it.  I don't see how you can even make that conclusion. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Because the jedi were complacent and just sat around doing nothing - the masters wanted them all to be pacifists and let the Mandalorians kill billions. It's said several times that the Republic would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war, so where does that leave the jed warriors protecting the Republic? Even Zez-Kai Ell admits that Revan and Malak and those who followed them were not entirely to blame for the situation, since masters were just too strict and arrogant in their decisions. Revan wasn't content to just sith around with the jedi masters sipping tea while the Republic died, so he decided to go out there and save the Republic instead of sitting around waiting for "some greater danger"... Revan may have turned into a monster from that decision, but at least he left a Republic for the jedi order to defend later, which is one Republic more than there would have been if he had done nothing... And when the time came, it made the jedi get out of their comfortable chairs and do something.

 

It's not hard to know that he was going to do that.  You can easily gather that from both games.  And you assume that Revan would destoy some worlds in the Republic but leave the government alone?  Even still, you can't say that Revan wasn't going to replace the power structure behind the Republic with something else, and I think it's even more rediculous to say he would have just set up another democratic regime.  You're going to conquer the Republic only to hand it over to someone else, or for that matter, a bunch of people?  Just think about it.  It's only logic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, you're looking at the game, reaching a conclusion and then assigned that as a fact. Just because you think it's logical does not make it so. The fact remains that we just don't know what sort of regime that Revan would have left, because he never got the change to create it. And just where did Revan destroy worlds? He didn't. Malak and Saul decided to destroy Taris and Telos. And where did I say that Revan would have set up another democratic regime? You misrepresent me by inferring that, since I didn't. I only said that we do not know what Revan would have done. Judging by GOTO's analysis, I'd speculate that Revan would have created a society focused on powerful military build-up in preparation for the next conflict with the true Sith. No, not a regime I would have liked to live under, but you cannot deny that the worlds of the Republic most likely would have survived the war with the true Sith better under those circumstances. Instead things now look pretty bleak for the Republic at the end of KotOR2...

 

He did NOT destroy any worlds to TAKE OVER the Republic.  Did you even see the movie?  That's what I'm referring to.  Read my posts. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I have them all on DVD, except RotS, but then I've seen that thrice...

 

And your point was that Sidious did not destroy worlds to conquer the Republic. He only assumed the position of Emperor in RotS, but note that he does not remove the senate until Episode IV...

 

Tarkin: "The imperial senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently - the last rudiments of the old republic have been swept away..."

 

Officer: "That's impossible! How will the Emperor maintain control without the bureaucracy?"

 

Tarkin: "Regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line - fear of this battle station!"

 

Thereafter Tarkin and Vader promptly use the Death Star to destroy Alderaan as a demonstration of their power... If you don't believe me, the scene is about 35-36 minutes into the film...

 

Still think I haven't seen the films? Maybe you should see them...

 

I said that Sidious destroyed the Republic.  I never contradicted myself.  Read my freakin posts, for crying out loud, or don't respond at all.  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe I should - persuasive argumentation like that is not quite in my league, I'll admit...

 

Historians can know the motives of many historians, but this is a different case.  GO-TO is a droid who never never knew Revan or associated with him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While we're on the topic of reading what other people say in their post, I might suggest you do the same... Those historians you refer also did not know the historic figures they speculate about... But now I'm just repeating myself... My bad :">

 

To boot, he had nothing else to work with but Revan's actions.  The only evidence he gives was that little blurb about leaving some structures intact.  That's it.  The evidence he gives for his analyisis is weak at best, to say anything other than that would be making up stuff that's not in the game. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He has access to the knowledge and power of the exchange, and I dare say an advanced interstellar civilization like the Republic has historic records and theses at least as good as those we can produce in the real world today. Add to this that GOTO was a droid built by the Republic to save the Republic and that he has been studying jedi for that sake, since he realises the important function they serve as figureheads in the Republic, and you have an exceedinly good basis for thinking GOTO may indeed know an awful lot about the subject.

 

And as Ulicus said, you can't call it a Jedi Civil war because once the Jedi leaves the order and embraces the Sith, they are no longer Jedi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

They may have become Sith, but it would be a pretty big oversight not to look at the reasons why they left the order it the first place. Those jedi weren't just "corrupted" by some Deux-ex-machina outside force. Their defiance and split from the jedi order is still at the core of the conflict even if they are not strictly jedi five years later. Also, look at the commoner perspective - the jedi masters decided to sit at home and do nothing while the innocents died, while Revan and the other defiant jedi joined the army and saved the Republic - they were heroes to the common people, the jedi who had responded to their plight and saved them. Who does that make the real jedi in the eyes of the common man? The jedi who defied the order to save the innocent or the jedi who decided to sit in their temples because of some mysterious jedi reason? Revan and Malak were the hero jedi during the Mandalorian Wars. A few years later they were suddenly the enemy, and the mysterious jedi who wouldn't fight before are now the hero jedi? It's really no wonder that the common people think this is some odd, internal jedi conflict...

 

And once again, it wasn't just fought by Jedi either. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that much is certainly true - the masters we see seemed to do preciously little, after all... "

 

And please tell me how you gathered from Kreia that Revan somehow knew about the Mandalorians before Malachor V, because I never gathered that from her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's my impression from her comments about Revan understanding the difference between a fall and a sacrifice and the comment about Revan knowing that the true war was not against the Republic... Doesn't mean that I'm right, but it isn't any better or worse than your speculation either, since we really don't know either way...

[SamuraiGaijin]

Interesting dialog ... I'm going to focus on one point, however ...

 

To boot, he had nothing else to work with but Revan's actions.  The only evidence he gives was that little blurb about leaving some structures intact.  That's it.  The evidence he gives for his analyisis is weak at best, to say anything other than that would be making up stuff that's not in the game. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He has access to the knowledge and power of the exchange, and I dare say an advanced interstellar civilization like the Republic has historic records and theses at least as good as those we can produce in the real world today. Add to this that GOTO was a droid built by the Republic to save the Republic and that he has been studying jedi for that sake, since he realises the important function they serve as figureheads in the Republic, and you have an exceedinly good basis for thinking GOTO may indeed know an awful lot about the subject.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

G0-T0 is, by his own admission, an "infrastructure droid" which implies that his expertise is managing the supporting elements of power and control in general - commodities trade, military support, communications, energy, etc. - in order for him to predict and influence the rise or fall of the Republic, he would have examined how these various elements had changed and what had caused those changes.

 

With the resources available to him - just as a legitimate "infrastructure droid" - on Telos through the Republic databases, it appears that he determined that the only way to save the Republic was to break Republic law by involving himself in the illegal aspects of trade. He also saw the value of both the Jedi and Sith (and keeping a balance between the two).

[GhostofAnakin]

He did NOT destroy any worlds to TAKE OVER the Republic.  Did you even see the movie?  That's what I'm referring to.  Read my posts. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? Considering how many countless worlds were destroyed (not literally destroyed, but their population killed) during the Clone Wars between the Seperatists and Republic, I'd say he did since it was he who manufactured that galactic war for his own benefit.

 

Billions died in a war that he orchastrated, and you say he didn't do something similar to what Revan did?

[GhostofAnakin]

Yes, except they conviently forgot that it was a gigantic fleet made up of primarly non-Force sensitives, conquering planets belonging to the Republic - not the Jedi.  It also contradicts every instance we see of how non-Force users refer to the war during KotOR 1.  By the common people, it was most definately seen as a war *against the Republic*, not the Jedi - though the Jedi faught for the Republic.

 

That's the problem - they're happy to say "its the common person's perspective" in one instance (Jedi/Sith confusion), yet then discard it in the other - sure, the *real* war might have been against the Jedi, but the galaxy as large didn't see it like that.

 

And *nothing* can excuse the fact that Jedi Masters would also refer to it as the Jedi Civil War... I mean, aside from the fact that that was its official name whether they liked it or not... goddamit I hate it when I defeat my own points.

 

Anyway, if it had been a good choice of name - such explanation would  not  have been needed.

 

End of story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the Jedi vs. Jedi was a major factor in the war.

 

Put it this way, you've heard of the Clone Wars, correct? Everyone refers to them as the Clone Wars, correct? So let me ask you this: Was it only CLONES that fought in those wars? Was it only CLONES that killed, or were killed during those wars? Was it CLONES who were the leaders of both the Separatist side and the Republic? Was it a CLONE who masterminded the entire thing?

 

Just because a war is referred to be a certain name doesn't mean that everyone and everything associated with it was the reason for the name of the war.