Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Lore-wise Who Is The Most Powerful Character In-Game?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Lore-wise Who Is The Most Powerful Character In-Game?

longinoch's Avatar


longinoch
04.26.2013 , 03:12 PM | #61
Quote: Originally Posted by Pauper_Ill View Post
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.

Bytemite's Avatar


Bytemite
04.26.2013 , 04:22 PM | #62
Quote: Originally Posted by longinoch View Post
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.

longinoch's Avatar


longinoch
04.26.2013 , 05:04 PM | #63
Quote: Originally Posted by Bytemite View Post
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.

TalkingDinosaur's Avatar


TalkingDinosaur
04.26.2013 , 05:09 PM | #64
I think it's quite obvious that Jar Jar Binks is the most powerful being in the Star Wars Universe.
TALKINGDINOSAUR
Squadron
11-11-11

colemak's Avatar


colemak
04.27.2013 , 03:27 AM | #65
Not all sith are dark side maniacs. For example there's darkspanner or whatever her name is, leading the revanites. The inquisitor can easily be played as a light side character. If you remember the interrogation quest on the SW, it isn't just kill kill kill.

Bytemite's Avatar


Bytemite
04.27.2013 , 09:26 AM | #66
Quote: Originally Posted by longinoch View Post
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.

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

Girdeux's Avatar


Girdeux
04.27.2013 , 09:41 AM | #67
Quote: Originally Posted by Bytemite View Post

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.

Bytemite's Avatar


Bytemite
04.27.2013 , 09:49 AM | #68
Quote: Originally Posted by Girdeux View Post
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.

Helig's Avatar


Helig
04.27.2013 , 10:12 AM | #69
Quote: Originally Posted by Bytemite View Post
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.
Spoiler

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.
Spoiler
"I'm not *giving* him cake, I'm *assaulting* him with cake!" - Pinkamena Diane Pie

Bytemite's Avatar


Bytemite
04.27.2013 , 10:19 AM | #70
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.

Spoiler