View Single Post

Euphrosyne's Avatar

04.10.2020 , 01:47 PM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by RowanThursday View Post
It seems to be that Thanaton's behaviour jars because it doesn't fit at all with his public image; he's a bit of a mirror to the player character, being a former slave, risen to eminence in the Sith by a combination of power, allies, and patronage, who stands out by being visually "normal looking" still amid a Dark Council of various masked, metalled, and bespiked weirdos, and speaks softly, civilly, projecting an impression of wisdom and reasoned authority - he does politely explain to the Inquisitor why she has to be killed, after all. Essentially, he paints himself as being what, if he were the player character, would be the Empire's ideal Darth Imperius; the kind of Sith that, were he in charge of Imperial Intelligence, would have Keeper privately relieved to finally be at the whim of a Sith not governed by the twin forces of Sadism and Stupidity... but it's all a lie, because Thanaton is really more of a second-rate Darth Nox, the abused slave turned abuser, with no real principle or scruples above and beyond "Nobody threatens the corner I've cleared out for myself!"

The difference is that Thanaton is weak. He needs the Dark Council, and hence will screw over their interests to protect himself; his selfishness during the Kaggath and the damage done is likely at least one of the factors in the Empire failing to hold Corellia, and he would do the same again next time. Darth Nox/Imperius/Oculus both defeats him despite a disadvantaged position, and does so in such a way that helps the Empire; whether by intent or side effect is unimportant; she's useful to the Council. Hence "I'm sorry, Thanaton."
Yes, that is the point. Thanaton is who the Forcewalker could become. The reason he's unsuccessful where Darth Nox isn't (?) is because he is an antagonist in a power fantasy game, not the protagonist.

The thing about Sith proclaiming to be disinterested servants of the interests of the Empire in this game is that they are almost always in power already, selling something, or both. Disavowal of personal gain can be a useful propaganda tool for the sheep, but a Sith who takes it seriously is rare as diamonds because it flies in the face of the actual Sith philosophy. Power, for the Sith, is its own justification. This makes a rebellion by an apprentice against a master easy to explain in retrospect, but it also makes it easy for the master to explain using their power to crush an apprentice. And for those in power, it's similarly easy for them to identify their own interests with the interests of the Empire.

In this, the alleged inconsistencies that Thanaton exhibits are entirely intended. That's the whole point.

It's the same with Thanaton's tendentious explanation for why he tries to crush the Forcewalker. Thanaton doesn't really care about tradition or slavery in themselves. He cares about power. He's Sith. Why would he feel empathy for someone like him? The fact that Thanaton's lust for power leads him to use those things as weapons against someone who is facing the same challenges that he once did is a deliberate statement by the game's creators and yet another indictment of the Sith philosophy as a whole.

They're not flaws in the presentation of his character. They're flaws in his character.
Euphrosynē (n., Greek) - "mirth, merriment"