KOTOR II Dialogue Files

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I've always thought that Juhani being a lesbian is rather a silly idea... I mean, really, once you stop having sex with your own species, does it really matter what the sex is of the person you're having it with?

 

Juhani is still a female who only likes other females - I cannot see how that is anything other than lesbian.

[babydol]

Juhani is still a female who only likes other females - I cannot see how that is anything other than lesbian.

 

Wait, she doesn't come on to you if you're male? Crazy.

[walkerguy]

I like Juhani

 

No, I'm joking.

 

Bastila isn't bad for a video game animation...

[Tale]

Now that I think of it, I don't think she ever came on to any of my characters. But, that also includes my attempt at seducing Bastila into a lesbian relationship. It may have been my violent anti-furry tendencies that scared Juhani off.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Juhani is still a female who only likes other females - I cannot see how that is anything other than lesbian.

 

Wait, she doesn't come on to you if you're male? Crazy.

 

Yeah, she's a homosexual, and thus is one of my favorite companions from the original game - if only because she broke the normal mold and had something a little edgy about her character for a change.

Edited April 29, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Now that I think of it, I don't think she ever came on to any of my characters.

 

It's a horribly buggy romance that had almost everything cut from it - but there are mods that restore that and you can make it work with a vanilla game if you know how to avoid the errors.

[walkerguy]

nm

Edited April 29, 2008 by walkerguy

[qt3.14159]

Of course it matters. They're still humanoid and, including Juhani's case, mammalian. The parts probably line up.

 

Damn it, I hate when people argue affectively with me. It leaves me feeling so unfulfilled. You're right, the attraction is to the physique, not the gender.

 

*sigh*

[Swxpert]

i dissagree, but she still is one of my favorite characters, she actually has a tearful story, but unlike carth dosn't whine about it, and bastila really is a spoiled jedi princess, oh we feel so sorry for you, carths planet was bombed, juhani was sold into slavery but none of that campares to not getting along with your mother, who you were a child when they took you away to be a jedi anyway.

[babydol]

... unlike carth dosn't whine about it...

 

Yeah, she's only in constant danger of falling to the dark side, instead.

[Tale]

Edit: I have no clue what's going on in this conversation now.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Tale

[Deadly_Nightshade]

... unlike carth dosn't whine about it...

 

Yeah, she's only in constant danger of falling to the dark side, instead.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[babydol]

Edit: I have no clue what's going on in this conversation now.

 

I believe we're discussing Juhani. I don't know why we're doing so in this thread... I guess it just evolved.

[Tale]

At first I thought it was Bastila being talked about. Then wait, no. It's Mira! Wait, wrong thread. I give up.

[qt3.14159]

Sorry, the Bastila diversion was my fault... and probably the Juhani too...

 

I'll try to behave now...

 

[Swxpert]

... unlike carth dosn't whine about it...

 

Yeah, she's only in constant danger of falling to the dark side, instead.

 

 

point taken, however i see every jedi as constantly being in danger of falling to the darkside, why else are things like marriage outlawed, if any little thing could trigger a jedi to fall, i can just see it now, "paper boy is late again"

"NOOOOO!" (force chokes every one in the room)

[babydol]

Sorry, the Bastila diversion was my fault... and probably the Juhani too...

 

I'll try to behave now...

 

 

Hey, we've gotta have something to gab about, right?

 

Edit to add:

... why else are things like marriage outlawed...

 

Because Jedi rules are lame. If I had to abide by all that, I'd probably prefer to follow the Sith, too. Or maybe not. I like Jolee's philosophy.

Edited April 30, 2008 by babydol

[qt3.14159]

Hey, we've gotta have something to gab about, right?

 

Well, I think so... yes... lol

 

Edit to add:

... why else are things like marriage outlawed...

 

Because Jedi rules are lame. If I had to abide by all that, I'd probably prefer to follow the Sith, too. Or maybe not. I like Jolee's philosophy.

 

And my thought on the marriage thing...

 

Why (in practice) did the Catholic church keep their clergy from marrying? Because inheritance laws trumped church ownership and diverted the efforts of the priest doing church work or providing for his family.

 

Similarly, the Jedi order has a vested interest in keeping their knights and masters single.

1. It's really hard to take children away from their parents to be indoctrinated at an early age if your order supports "family" ties.

2. Jedi are a lot like superheros in that they don't have many vulnerabilities, give them family (especially children) and they're suddenly much more vulnerable to fear - not for themselves but to others. Fear, more than any other emotion, leads to the darkside.

3. Jedi work is highly demanding. It's best not to have the workers distracted by silly things like having their own life.

 

All of those are very good reasons, but it's still not a very realistic expectation and probably overall causes more problems than it prevents.

 

/oh crap, I did it again, didn't i?

[babydol]

Nah, I don't buy it. It's not normal to not want to feel love of any kind. But this is just my own opinion. I understand that the order feels the need to have set rules, and comparing them to religion is exactly right. But then, I've always had problems with structured religion, too.

[Tale]

Jedi are a lot like superheros in that they don't have many vulnerabilities, give them family (especially children) and they're suddenly much more vulnerable to fear - not for themselves but to others. Fear, more than any other emotion, leads to the darkside.

This is a large part it. Lucas doesn't appear to have thought it too well over, but that's what he is presenting in the movies, especially III, V, and VI. Attachment can lead to "negative" emotions, such as fear or anger, which can lead to the Dark Side.

 

Certainly, the policy of forbidding attachment entirely doesn't seem rationally or ideally sound, but that's the idea posited by Lucas for the Jedi. It may seem like a bit of overkill, but despite how the threat may seem manageable to us, Lucas wants it to be very real and dangerous for them.

 

Nah, I don't buy it. It's not normal to not want to feel love of any kind. But this is just my own opinion. I understand that the order feels the need to have set rules, and comparing them to religion is exactly right. But then, I've always had problems with structured religion, too.

Probably the hardest part of understanding fiction when you start really looking into it is realizing that the same rules we see from the real world don't necessarilly apply. These characters don't really have a psychology. Now, I'm not saying it's normal, in Star Wars, for people to not feel love. But, that's it's more manageable for Jedi, presumably due to stronger discipline. It may seem overly controlling to you, and in the real world you'd likely be right, but within context of what the universe has shown, the rules are there for a very good reason. Fear of losing people you love is the very thing that Palpatine exploits to turn others to the Dark Side. And it ruined the galaxy.

Edited April 30, 2008 by Tale

[Swxpert]

no that is just because anikin is an idiot, i mean kreia even comments on how children of jedi have natural force tallent, to me outlawing marriage is stupid and thats why it didn't exist until ep2, before that you have jedi familes, han and leia marry, luke gets married, heck qui-gon got married in a jedi marriage ceremony, and that i feel is how it should work. after all k2 pointed out that it dosn't need to be families needing protection that make jedi vulnerable, any inocent the protect becomes a target, using the principles already in place dosn't one on one training seem hypocritical, because of couse master and student will bond and it looks as though friendships are right out cause it too could be dammaging, also the jedi make these rules and then when it suits them they break them, take ki-adi-mundi, he has a couple wives and many children because of a low birthrate for his species, but still arn't they all attachments?

Edited May 1, 2008 by Swxpert

[Tale]

I'm speaking based on G-canon. You're speaking of C.

 

C-canon differs from G-canon in many core themes, largely because it suffers from the too many cooks problem. Not to say Lucas was particularly consistent by himself. But you can't really look at overal themes from EU.

 

And as for one-on-one training being hypocritical, you simply can't read too much into that. You're not seeing particular attachment come from that in the movies (though, if you read too much into the finale of Phantom Menace, you might). But the movies do have reminders of the dangers of attachment for Jedi. Not just Anakin, but Luke too. It lead him into a trap in ESB and that's why Yoda warned him against it. Though that did turn out for the better in the end.

 

Basically, it's a point that Lucas' Star Wars and the EU Star Wars disagree on.

Edited May 1, 2008 by Tale

[qt3.14159]

I'm not really sure there's a disagreement between the two, really... In any religion, adherence to non-dogma related guildlines swings drastically from strict adherence to almost none. It's a natural way of things. Religious leaders see the problems that one particular issue is causing and start preaching against it. Those trying to live by the guidelines generally over correct which causes problems the other way, which makes the rules more lax again. It's a giant pendulum.

 

But then, maybe I'm trying to get too real with it and taking it too far... I do that sometimes...

[ilego]

I wanted to know where all the dialog for the NPC "romance" is cut or otherwise and if a mod add that I would like that as well