Food riots. I assume you've seen the lower levels of Coruscant? This is pretty much already what the Twilighters of the lower city live every day. If the plan was to kill Coruscant with the planet prison, clearly that approach isn't going to do it, and there are much easier though less subtle ways to accomplish that.

Also this gets into the thing where the Sith would probably kinda like to CONQUER Coruscant as a symbolic thing? Not to mention the resources and slave labor that would be wasted by starving them out.

The ion charge in the atmosphere over Uphrades was expected to return to normal, so as far as I can see Tarnis and Angral weren't intending an indefinite starve to death fate for Coruscant.

Doesn't make Person 1 accountable. Especially given the fact that the son of Person 2 was going to kill you. Angral's wanted revenge because his son (who was trying to kill lots of people) was killed. It's a typical bad guy scenerio...like Taken 2. Never mind his son is doing obviously bad things (and Sith know they're doing bad things) the fact is, Person 2 is evil as well. Person 2 gets to use it to feel like a martyr as well "Woes is me, the death of my son, now I must avenge his death, even if he was evil and hurting/killing others, no matter the cost."

Killed them because they were going to kill me and lots of other people and now there's a madman out for revenge killing lots of people.

While that sounds like a classic vicious cycle, keeping it going hardly absolves responsibility.

Food riots. I assume you've seen the lower levels of Coruscant? This is pretty much already what the Twilighters of the lower city live every day. If the plan was to kill Coruscant with the planet prison, clearly that approach isn't going to do it, and there are much easier though less subtle ways to accomplish that.

 

Also this gets into the thing where the Sith would probably kinda like to CONQUER Coruscant as a symbolic thing? Not to mention the resources and slave labor that would be wasted by starving them out.

 

The ion charge in the atmosphere over Uphrades was expected to return to normal, so as far as I can see Tarnis and Angral weren't intending an indefinite starve to death fate for Coruscant.

Except that the Republic built the world prison to hold a planet hostage and force it to surrender, Angral even before the Knights interference was already planning to turn it into a weapon of mass destruction. But lets look at your feeling that Angral is somehow a victim because the Knight kills his son and it this that somehow turns him form simply and evil conqueror in to a genocidal madman. Lets not forget that the

and while most of the empire is unaware of this their are some who know and agree with this path. The fact that Angral rather than coming after the Knight directly Angral simply implements the genocidal plan they already in place says to me that his sons death was merely an excuse not the cause. Oh yes and if you play through the imp side you find that they want a war were they obliterate the Republic not force it to surrender.

That's only his plan after

Look at it this way, he even shows up when you face down with Lord Angral but doesn't try to use that force ritual to buff himself up, even though there's more than enough there for it to work. Perhaps Angral's success, plus the loss of the mitigating factors, is what gave the Emperor the idea.

Also it's still not well established that Tarnis and Angral weren't going to use the planet prison as intended. I don't agree that you've supplied enough evidence to support this conclusion. And while I haven't played through the entire Sith story, and while many Sith are completely psychopathic, I doubt that the Dark Council and every single other Sith only want galaxy wide destruction. My impression is most want to CRUSH the Republic in a military sense, but they also want to BENEFIT from the conquer of it, which is an entirely different concept then complete obliteration.

We need only look at the Emperor's plan and compare it to the results of what is clearly an overall less extreme strategy from the rest of the Sith see that difference.

You are assuming first of all that Angral starts out with an attitude like the Emperor and that he's in on a plan the Emperor seems to have come up with later, and second you are assuming that Angral's later actions imply his original intentions with the planet prison. Neither has enough evidence to support the claim.

And because we can't know this, the Knight's responsibility in all this remains obscure, and his accomplishments remain ambiguous.

Killed them because they were going to kill me and lots of other people and now there's a madman out for revenge killing lots of people.

 

While that sounds like a classic vicious cycle, keeping it going hardly absolves responsibility.

Good people standing by the wayside, allowing bad people to do bad things, in the hopes that once the bad thing over, they'll stop doing bad things is naivity

It's also why in stories you'll usually see the good act reactively, instead of proavtively. The JK is not at fault for anything Angral did. All the JK could do is take care of it all. Especially if one considers, if the JK had just captured Tarnis, then Angral would have killed people until he was set free or because you slighted his honor, or whatever excuse he wanted to kill mass amounts of people.

The vicious cycle doesn't end, because bad people are bad people.

"Bad" people also care about their loved ones and the future unless they're complete nut jobs. The Knight really didn't try to take Tarnis captive, especially compared to say, punching out Bengal Morr while he was rambling on and on about purifying the Jedi Order.

The Knight might have made a cursory surrender offer, but arguably not a sincere offer since the basic attitude was A Sith Attack Attack. Without scoping out the situation fully or determining who was on the holocall in the background. (And then of course Angral sets you up in a reverse situation watching over a holocall on Alderaan.)

You want to indisputeably show Angral for a crazy genocidal maniac, you'd have to take his son captive, not kill, and if instead of playing the concerned father and negotiating his son's safety or release, if he threatened to destroy everything anyway, THEN your argument would be supportable. You are assuming that's what would happen but you simply can't KNOW that.

Looking at someone and saying oh look it's a Sith, they're "bad guys", they must be one dimensional murder-happy psychos with a nonexistent sense of pragmatism is very much over simplifying motivations and ignores the possibility of character development albeit for villians.

The smuggler prefers the term "scruffy pirate" over "crime lord" for legally defensible reasons, and would like to add that they haven't smuggled or pirated and these papers for that cargo are completely legitimate.

Who are you calling scruffy?

The Smuggler should be considered pretty powerful, what with the number of pirates, mercenaries and rogues at her/his command. And isn't entirely a slouch in personal combat themselves.

IMO:

 

1) Jedi Consular/Sith Inquisitor

 

Both are members of their respective councils, both have raised armies loyal to them, both have multiple apprentices (remember the Consular picks up a Voss mystic as an apprentice of sorts). Both of those classes knowledge of the force exceeds the other force using classes which focus more on martial skills.

I'd put the Consular above the Inquisitor for this reason only -- the Inquisitor is Sith, and thus knows that her armies may profess loyalty, but their leaders are continually plotting how to get out from under/get power over her. That's the Sith way -- it's how she came into her power. This necessarily limits some of the things the Inquisitor can do with her power and influence, because she can't afford to put too much trust in anyone other than herself.

The Consular, on the other hand, owns his power through force of personality and heroic deeds. Every major world in the Republic owes him a personal debt for their survival over the Empire, and even the Supreme Chancellor accepts that the Consular's actions with the Rift Alliance saved the entire Republic. There may be things the Consular would not ask his followers to do, given who he is, but there is little his force could not accomplish, especially with him at the lead.

The Jedi Knight may defeat the Emporer, but the Jedi Consular defeats the Empire, and that's actually a pretty big difference.

My smuggler gave up much of her power be committing her fleet to the aid of the Republic, though that did not mean once the war is over she couldn't use them in a differ way.

Strange there is that world again ambiguous, sorry but I fail to see how the knight's accomplishments are ambiguous when others are not. maybe Lacking would be a better word for what I understand of your opinion, since you seem to believe but not exactly prove that Angral simply wanted to conquer the republic and because the Knight fails to be everywhere at once an thus loses a planet. we can continue to around and around with this but unless you can justify Angral going after everyone but the Knight, I'm afraid that from my point of view he will remain nothing but some one who uses his sons death as a justification for his actions and the Knight will remain the greatest and most powerful hero I have played and will remain blameless for Angral's actions because Anrgal's actions and choices are his, something Angral would probably agree with. Also remember most of the empire was not in favor of the treaty, since they wanted to level Corusant much like they did Taris and they spend most of chapter two trying to restart the war.

The Jedi Knight may defeat the Emporer, but the Jedi Consular defeats the Empire, and that's actually a pretty big difference.

Which then is the bigger loss to the Empire the Emperor or the Children? Since the loss of the Children is the main accomplishment of the Consular. I do agree that the Consular is above the SI.

Since the Smuggler has a chance to order the destruction of most of the imperial fleet one could argue the Smuggler has just as much to do with the empires current woes as the consular.

Strange there is that world again ambiguous, sorry but I fail to see how the knight's accomplishments are ambiguous when others are not. maybe Lacking would be a better word for what I understand of your opinion, since you seem to believe but not exactly prove that Angral simply wanted to conquer the republic and because the Knight fails to be everywhere at once an thus loses a planet. we can continue to around and around with this but unless you can justify Angral going after everyone but the Knight, I'm afraid that from my point of view he will remain nothing but some one who uses his sons death as a justification for his actions

Sure. I'm not saying that Angral's motivations are sympathetic, and he's making excuses to himself that his actions are rightful because of his son's death. He is mistaken. That still doesn't mean that The Knight didn't potentially provide incentive for that destructive rampage, or push someone who was already unstable or "bad" over the edge.

Angral is responsible for his actions, and so is the Knight. And I kinda don't see the Knight as entirely blameless here - he killed someone. Someone who was trying to kill him, sure. Maybe even someone who was willing to hurt a lot of people. But saying that there's no moral question in killing someone even if they're like that and that the Knight is blameless for what followed strikes me as more excuses. Bengal Morr was also willing to hurt lots of people, but you took him captive and redeemed him instead. You didn't take Tarnis captive, because...? He's a Sith, and therefore evil? Because he was trying to do something that might hurt lots of people, when you accepted surrender from other people involved in similar efforts?

This whole storyline highlights how everyone might have people who care about them, who grieve over them even if they're "bad," and that there are consequences in black and white thinking.

Angral, Tarnis, and the Knight sparked a conflict that dragged whole planets into it and endangered a lot of people. it's really a microcosm commentary on the terrible and bloody feud between the Sith and the Jedi/Galactic Republic. Both sides believe the other to be hypocritical self-righteous monsters that devastate populations around them. Both sides are probably correct, but in acting on that belief and killing people on the other side, they perpetuate the violent cycle.

Sure. I'm not saying that Angral's motivations are sympathetic, and he's making excuses to himself that his actions are rightful because of his son's death. He is mistaken. That still doesn't mean that The Knight didn't potentially provide incentive for that destructive rampage, or push someone who was already unstable or "bad" over the edge.

 

Angral is responsible for his actions, and so is the Knight. And I kinda don't see the Knight as entirely blameless here - he killed someone. Someone who was trying to kill him, sure. Maybe even someone who was willing to hurt a lot of people. But saying that there's no moral question in killing someone even if they're like that and that the Knight is blameless for what followed strikes me as mere excuses (Bengal Morr was also willing to hurt lots of people, but you took him captive and redeemed him instead).

 

This whole storyline highlights how everyone might have people who care about them, who grieve over them even if they're "bad," and no matter how righteous you feel the cause is, someone might have valid reasons for disagreeing that you have been righteous.

 

Angral, Tarnis, and the Knight sparked a conflict that dragged whole planets into it and endangered a lot of people. it's really a microcosm commentary on the terrible and bloody feud between the Sith and the Jedi/Galactic Republic. Both sides believe the other to be hypocritical self-righteous monsters that devastate populations around them. Both sides are probably correct in this, but in acting on that belief and killing people on the other side, they perpetuate the violent cycle.

Yet the Knight owns up to his actions by stopping Angral and by saving everyone he possibly can. Angral attacks innocent unrelated civilians simply because they don't belong to the empire and because restarting the war is the imps main objective. So is the Knight really responsible for this out come no and it is not a matter of the knights righteousness vs Angral's pov that he is the righteous one it a matter of one side using a result that they had to expect on some level to try and lay blame at the feet of other for their actions. Think about Quesh's planet story for a minute the Moff in charge has one goal to cause the Republic to restart the war, if you play the republic side tries to accomplish this by attempting to goad you into killing him (the same thing Tarnis did (though you don't have to kill him in this case where as a player you weren't given the option to not kill Tarnis)) all so the empire can lay the blame for the war restarting at the feet of the republic. My point being if you set the death or capture (Angral had to account for either possibility in his plan) of your son for the sake of restarting a war, then you have just absolved the person that kills or captures your son of any responsibility for your actions. The knight then only remains responsible for the life he took not the lives Angral takes.

Yet the Knight owns up to his actions by stopping Angral and by saving everyone he possibly can.

More people died than just the one person the Knight killed. Actions and consequences do not take place in a vacuum. Except for space battles.

You say the Knight owned up to their actions, meaning they had a responsibility to prevent further deaths, as one death by their own hand is what created the situation. But the Knight clearly did not prevent further deaths.

Angral attacks innocent unrelated civilians simply because they don't belong to the empire and because restarting the war is the imps main objective.

My point being if you set the death or capture (Angral had to account for either possibility in his plan) of your son for the sake of restarting a war, then you have just absolved the person that kills or captures your son of any responsibility for your actions.

The Empire disavowed Angral's actions and claimed he was acting on his own volition. They might be lying, they might not. And you also can't know for certain that was Angral's motivation.

It is a logical fallacy to take the motivations of a few people, like the Emperor, or a Moff on Quesh, and attribute them to the motivations of an entire side in a war, and then back-attribute that to a single individual. We are never told by anyone that Angral never actually cared about his son, and we are told by Watcher One, who is not a "bad" imperial or even a bad person, that the Empire's interest in the superweapons is to keep them away from the Republic. Could they all be lying? Sure. But we don't have any evidence that would support a cogent argument for that interpretation.

The Knight had a responsibility, whether out of duty to the helpless or to atone for the death that happened that started the situation. I feel as though the Knight's accomplishments here are ambiguous because I don't feel that those efforts were successful.

 

Can't know this. The Empire disavowed Angral's actions and claimed he was acting on his own volition. They might be lying, they might not. And you also can't know for certain that was Angral's motivation, it's an assumption that is being made that doesn't have evidence in-story.

You literally must have forgotten most of the JK storyline then...Angral was under orders from the Emperor.

You literally must have forgotten most of the JK storyline then...Angral was under orders from the Emperor.

Show me where.

I never saw anything to indicate that the Emperor was involved with Angral's plans, because if the Emperor had his plan already and WAS therefore involved with Angral's plan, then why didn't he use his force ritual? And if the Emperor had not come up with his force ritual yet because of his own prisoner mentally holding him back, then Angral COULDN'T have been acting in accordance with the Emperor's plan because that plan didn't exist yet.

It looks to me as though the Emperor heard about or felt what happened after the fact, but not being aware of it in advance, could not use the situation for that plan (or the plan did not exist yet). Instead, the Emperor tried to use the situation for what advantage he could, by finding the Jedi Knight, and Kira, and trying to kill the Knight.

Show me where.

 

I never saw anything to indicate that the Emperor was involved with Angral's plans, because if the Emperor had his plan already and WAS therefore involved with Angral's plan, then why didn't he use his force ritual? And if the Emperor had not come up with his force ritual yet because of his own prisoner mentally holding him back, then Angral COULDN'T have been acting in accordance with the Emperor's plan because that plan didn't exist yet.

 

It looks to me as though the Emperor heard about or felt what happened after the fact, but not being aware of it in advance, could not use the situation for that plan (or the plan did not exist yet). Instead, the Emperor tried to use the situation for what advantage he could, by finding the Jedi Knight, and Kira, and trying to kill the Knight.

Eh, it's clearly stated in the end of act 1.

Vitiate deliberately primed Angral for destroying Tython (where the majority of the Jedi were still located while the full-blown war hasn't still restarted), while he was laying groundwork for his ritual.

Plus, the ritual itself is not designed to kill - on all worlds, the plan was to destroy life for the Emperor to feed upon. If the ritual itself could kill on such massive scale, the Emperor wouldn't need to blow up planets, drive entire populations insane, etc, etc, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhcKdlSsRVM (Warning, Spoilers to anyone who hasn't finished JK Chapter 1)

The Emperor shows up, yes, but I don't see Angral or the Emperor mention the ritual or anything like that. The Emperor only commands Angral to kill the Knight, and later says that Angral was useful.

Because of existing canon about Revan, I am not sure the Emperor's plan existed yet. And if it did, Angral's plan couldn't have been part of it because the Emperor does not follow through on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhcKdlSsRVM

 

The Emperor shows up, yes, but I don't see Angral or the Emperor mention the ritual or anything like that. The Emperor only commands Angral to kill the Knight.

 

Because of existing canon about Revan, I am not sure the Emperor's plan existed yet. And if it did, Angral's plan couldn't have been part of it because the Emperor does not follow through on that.

. If that doesn't confirm that Angral was under the Emperor orders, I don't know what does.

As for the plan - Vitiate was planning this for eternity. The very reason for the Empire to exist, as is explained in Acts 2 and 3 (no, no clear "LOL I MAED TEH EMPIER 2 KEEL EVERYTHING 2 EAT ALL LIEF AND BECUM MOAR POWAFUL"), but there are a lot, a lot of references and indications from various sources - from the fallen to Imperial death cultists and Sith lords (including Scourge).

Uphrades wasn't as well-populated, and, as I recall, deaths over the Galaxy must be simultaneous for the ritual to take full power. Judging by how long it took for Vitiate to prepare, I don't think he'd waste such effort to eat some backwater planet. Not to mention leaving a trail that would give the Jedi more than a couple of hints.

Under orders to kill the Knight, and a useful tool in the service of possibly killing you? Sure. But neither of those actually says that Angral was acting in accordance with the Emperor's plans for his force ritual.

And there's indications in the broader story that the Emperor didn't even have that plan yet at the end of Chapter 1. Not least of which being the Emperor's own actions. And the whole thing with Revan.

deaths over the Galaxy must be simultaneous for the ritual to take full power.

I'm double checking this, but my recollection is that the ritual didn't require the entire galaxy to be annihilated first. Only a few million people are needed to kickstart it, and then it's a dominoes effect as the Emperor's power goes stronger.

But also he is the best of the best the military has to offer.Many dont know he would be able to kill a sith or a knight but i think he would be and it would be easy.Remember lets say a commando has heave armor a bit cannon and he can shoot him from range.Now he may not be the strongest but he is really strong too.Also smuggler vs sniper,sniper can kill the warrior or any sith or jedi from 800 meters away :@ and i dont think you would feel it with the force.

Under orders to kill the Knight, and a useful tool in the service of possibly killing you? Sure. But neither of those actually says that Angral was acting in accordance with the Emperor's plans for his force ritual.

 

And there's indications in the broader story that the Emperor didn't even have that plan yet at the end of Chapter 1. Not least of which being the Emperor's own actions.

The absense of (direct) evidence is not the evidence of absence. Put 2 and 2 together, take into account what the Emperor represents, how patient and intelligent he is. He didn't go to war with the Republic just to take revenge for the boo-boo that the bad Jedi left on his backside. He started it to ensure massacre exactly on the scale that his ritual needed.

Angral was making sure the Emperor's plan would succeed - Tython likely was not a part of it. He needed to throw the Jedi Order into disarray (pretty much the better half of the Concil, including the Grand Master, and hundreds of promising Padawans were situated there when Angral attacked), Republic and surviving Jedi outraged, and either weakened by division, or provoked to attack the Empire, breaking the Treaty and losing much neutral support.

Besides.... are you saying that the entire superweapon race which involved a gigantic fleet, hundreds of field agents and dozens of Sith was meant to.... destroy one Jedi who hasn't even come to power to threaten the Emperor yet?

Angral was making sure the Emperor's plan would succeed - Tython likely was not a part of it. He needed to throw the Jedi Order into disarray (pretty much the better half of the Concil, including the Grand Master, and hundreds of promising Padawans were situated there when Angral attacked), Republic and surviving Jedi outraged, and either weakened by division, or provoked to attack the Empire, breaking the Treaty and losing much neutral support.

hmm. It's possible that Angral was unaware of this, but that was the Emperor's use of Angral. I am still unsure that the plan existed at that point, but if it did, that's a possible explanation.

In fairness, I don't hold the JK's defiance of the Emperor against them. Only the responsibility they might have in what happened with Angral.

Besides.... are you saying that the entire superweapon race which involved a gigantic fleet, hundreds of field agents and dozens of Sith was meant to.... destroy one Jedi who hasn't even come to power to threaten the Emperor yet?

For the Emperor, yes. For Angral, his sole agenda was revenge, as far as I can tell. I am still viewing this as both of those two players operating on their own and for their own reasons, but the Emperor having automatic deference when he randomly showed up. Depending on if my understanding of the force ritual and the thing with Revan is correct. I'm trying to confirm this, but most of the videos dealing with this are over 20 minutes long.