Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Why wasn't the LS Betrayal Set Up in Iokath?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore > Spoilers
Why wasn't the LS Betrayal Set Up in Iokath?

Kyrrant's Avatar


Kyrrant
08.25.2017 , 01:02 AM | #1
So, here's the issue I have with Umbra and Iokath.

...

Okay, here's ONE of the issues I have. Theron backstabbing a character that took the Eternal Throne as Emperor/Empress? Fine! That makes total sense at face value, completely understandable, even if he's bedding the Emperor/Empress.

But backstabbing a Commander that took the throne to use it for peacekeeping and basically being all Jedi Jesus with it? The explanation he gives, that the Alliance is beyond the Commander's control and it's dragging the galaxy back towards war... why wasn't that set up earlier?

At the start of Iokath, a Peacekeeper Commander is told "Hey, Zakuul's demanding more free ****, what should we do?", and you can throw them more stuff or tell them to get bent. Fine, but that was an opportunity to show the unintended consequences of being nice with the Eternal Fleet, people firing at the people sending goods around, demanding it be scuttled or used against one side, at least hint at one point that the Alliance, even as a peacekeeping force, wasn't a good idea.

I know, I know, odds are like 90% that Theron's just doing a double/triple/whatever-agent thing, infiltrating the Order so he can destroy them, and maybe it was originally going to be Lana that betrayed the Alliance if you went Peacekeeper (since the Sith would be able to say "*** WHY DIDN'T YOU CLAIM THE THRONE?!"), but not making the stated reason make any sense is a serious problem with the writing...
Begeren Colony RPer
Orell Legacy
(...yes, we do exist...)

Nefla's Avatar


Nefla
08.25.2017 , 07:00 AM | #2
I agree with you, and the answer is bad writing and probably a lack of care for SP/ story now. They could have shown scenes of the alliance teams becoming rebellious and acting on their own or being forced into violent confrontations with people attacking them or Zakuul demanding its' fleet back and show the commander kind of struggling to hold everything together. The things the traitor does do not match up with what we've been shown and told in the game. I feel like they thought they had this "super cool" idea for a companion betraying an evil overlord tyrant character and then just kind of went "oops, this doesn't fit a LS character...oh well, we'll just throw in a vague line about the alliance outgrowing them or something." The betrayer is acting completely OOC and this just feels like a cheap M. Night Shyamalan twist for shock value with no setup and no motivation.

IoNonSoEVero's Avatar


IoNonSoEVero
08.25.2017 , 12:00 PM | #3
ITA that it doesn't make any sense for a LS Peacekeeper - but I actually don't think it would have made sense for Lana to be the betrayer if you were (and no, I'm not just saying that because). She's the one who actually *set up* the Alliance, and she's not a puppy-kicking Dark V sort of Sith so she approves of many LS choices. As pragmatic as she is, if nothing else, being a peacekeeper means helping the Empire and helping keep the Empire's foes off their back.

IMHO Acina and Jace were the only truly logical choices here. Given the scene at the end of KOTET, this plot is in motion literally hours after the Commander has defeated Valkorion, which means that the traitor isn't even giving the Commander *a chance* to prove anything one way or the other. It would make a lot more sense for the heads of the Empire or Republic to be the ones engineering things in that case, given their decision in how the Commander deals with the Throne.

Nefla's Avatar


Nefla
08.25.2017 , 12:11 PM | #4
Quote: Originally Posted by IoNonSoEVero View Post
I
IMHO Acina and Jace were the only truly logical choices here. Given the scene at the end of KOTET, this plot is in motion literally hours after the Commander has defeated Valkorion, which means that the traitor isn't even giving the Commander *a chance* to prove anything one way or the other. It would make a lot more sense for the heads of the Empire or Republic to be the ones engineering things in that case, given their decision in how the Commander deals with the Throne.
I agree with this, both because their motivation would make much more sense and because they wouldn't have been brought in, wasted on one short segment and then tossed out. Both were such interesting characters and so wasted. I want to think they'll be involved in the storyline in future chapters but since one can die we can pretty much bet they're going to just disappear.

IoNonSoEVero's Avatar


IoNonSoEVero
08.25.2017 , 12:45 PM | #5
Quote: Originally Posted by Nefla View Post
I agree with this, both because their motivation would make much more sense and because they wouldn't have been brought in, wasted on one short segment and then tossed out. Both were such interesting characters and so wasted. I want to think they'll be involved in the storyline in future chapters but since one can die we can pretty much bet they're going to just disappear.
And in KOTET there are a few little references to both the Empire and Republic potentially plotting against you...there's that email from Acina where she mentions that some of her advisors wanted her to try for the Throne when the Commander disappears on Iokath and she also alludes to having spies and intelligence watching you. On the Republic side, obviously there's Saresh, and there are also the emails afterward, where you're told that the Republic leaders are publicly bashing the Commander and siding with the Eternal Throne over the Alliance. It makes sense that they'd move against the Eternal Alliance because it can be argued they're already heading in that direction.

But for Theron (or Lana) to literally start plotting this the moment the Commander wins? Does not compute.

I agree, both Jace and Acina are/were intriguing characters, and it would have been wonderful to see more done with them. It's a shame that seems to have been cut short now. I really liked the communications with Acina throughout the KOTET chapters, where she was encouraging the Commander.

catsi's Avatar


catsi
08.27.2017 , 12:03 PM | #6
Actually every single uprising is a clue something larger is happening in the galaxy. the codex entries for each ones completion show that some larger force is pushing these uprisings and making them worse,

The orders been built up quietly as the big bad trying to undermine us.
Ana Tathis 70 JK, Serraphin 70 COM/VG, Naashasa 70 Sage, Calliann, 70 GS, Kae'ra 70JK, Phyera 70 Sage
Rhea-hawk 70 PT, Gaa'ra 70 Mara, Fio'on 70 AS/Sorc , Mirri'elle 70 OP, Narayssa 70 Jug

Shayddow's Avatar


Shayddow
08.31.2017 , 04:50 PM | #7
What I think may happen, granted I'm only theorizing here:
"Decisions Matter" :
DS: You put a bounty on Theron - It plays out as you see it - Theron really goes anti-Alliance, Akaavi returns to try to collect the bounty on Theron - DS Jaesa returns, Scourge returns)
LS: Theron is doing an "Undercover" - he will return to you, meanwhile giving you a chance to rescue some of the other missing companions (Kira, LS Jaesa returns)
Shekkel,70 Nimrossa, 70 |Ebon Hawk
Shassella, 70 Barzella, 70 | Begeran
Adonnah, 70 Kydosh, 70 |Harbinger
Tashha, 70 Svgon, 70