There's only four senators I can recall specific to Coruscant.

 

 

1. Female senator you can bust for being corrupt. If you do so, she accepts your decision and steps down willingly. This undermines the 'corruption is the way of life', given that there are clear consequences for it.

 

2. Senator implied to be involved in illegal slavery (gets put under investigation if you go LS)

 

3. Senator working with the Gree (not corrupt, seems nice).

 

4. Senator who wants to ally with the Empire (not necessarily corrupt, though his politics are morally reprehensible)

I seem to recall another who became involved with one of the local criminal organisations. The black sun, I believe. Of course, this information is relayed to you by another senator who wants you to collect evidence of such so he can formally accuse him, so it's not exactly a demonstration of the Republic just looking the other way at such things.

Assuming your talking about Lesaberisa's post, then you're wrong.

 

Firstly, she tackled your arguments precisely and logically, her argument is fair and solid, which to be fair your argument wasn't.

 

Secondly, she never attacked you, she attacked and destroyed your argument, but she never said anything about you.

 

Thirdly, you also used the wall of text approach in creating your argument, so to criticise someone for countering it in the same style is so gauche. Of course she used more text, because she was responding to your argument, which naturally took more to respond to, it's a law of discourse, unless you use one word answers you use more text to respond.

I say I'll agree to disagree, and you start an argument about the argument? Really?

1. My argument was clear.

2. In one of her several strawman arguments she tried to paint me as "pessimistic about democracy". That was a comment about me, not my argument.

3. Granted, I'm sorry, I'd forgotten how long the original post was, but it all seemed to get longer and you can't really blame me for being annoyed with all the logical fallacies in her argument (save for a couple of coherent points about Sith infighting, but then they manage to unite where it counts most and give the Republic a fight).

I say I'll agree to disagree, and you start an argument about the argument? Really?

 

1. My argument was clear.

2. In one of her several strawman arguments she tried to paint me as "pessimistic about democracy". That was a comment about me, not my argument.

3. Granted, I'm sorry, I'd forgotten how long the original post was, but it all seemed to get longer and you can't really blame me for being annoyed with all the logical fallacies in her argument (save for a couple of coherent points about Sith infighting, but then they manage to unite where it counts most and give the Republic a fight).

You know, Brad, I replied to you as well; if you're not also mad at me, I'd be interested in continuing our discussion.

1. My argument was clear.

It really isn't, though. You've made contradictory arguments (i.e. you've claimed both that the Empire isn't nearly as corrupt as the Republic because it can't afford to be corrupt, that the Empire is corrupt but it has "room to grow" which makes it superior, that the Empire is corrupt but the Republic's corruption is far worse because it's "hidden", etc.), you've made arguments that contradict in-game information (re: racism in the Empire, the corruption and in-fighting in Empire and its effect on the war effort, etc.), and so on.

2. In one of her several strawman arguments she tried to paint me as "pessimistic about democracy". That was a comment about me, not my argument.

First of all, if you felt that was an attack on you, that's an ad hominem, not a strawman. And I wasn't attacking you, I was simply stating that you seem to have an unusually pessimistic view of the functioning of democracy when every individual case of corruption gets inflated into the entire structure being corrupt or how the fact there's nobility on some Republic worlds means the entire Republic is just an oligarchy.

I'm not saying that democracy is all sunshine and roses (I used to work for the US government so...), but you do seem awfully quick (to me) to jump from "here's some specific problems in the Republic" to "because specific problems exist, it means these problems are system and represent a wholesale failure of the Republic as a political entity on a moral/ethical level", while you treat the Empire's far worse crimes rather gently.

And if you're going to use this line to attack my arguments, then it should also be noted that you (incorrectly) claimed that I was arguing the Republic was "incorruptible" (a true strawman), and several times implied that i'm somehow missing/not understanding obvious truths you claim to be stating despite the fact i'm the one using in-game examples that you don't address.

3. Granted, I'm sorry, I'd forgotten how long the original post was, but it all seemed to get longer and you can't really blame me for being annoyed with all the logical fallacies in her argument (save for a couple of coherent points about Sith infighting, but then they manage to unite where it counts most and give the Republic a fight).

"Wall of Text" is meant to apply to poorly-written/formatted posts that fail to make logical points and just take up space without making a point. Obviously, you seem to think some of that applies to my posts, but refuting your arguments directly and using in-game evidence isn't a "wall of text". If you're simply trying to say my posts are longer than what you're used to...then...I'm sorry I guess? I respond directly to your points and provide specific refutation of your arguments, I don't see any need to post incompletely.

The point about 'logical fallacies' is silly because (1) you haven't actually pointed any out and (2) you've been repeatedly ignoring in-game facts, canon and introducing conjecture and irrelevant material (i.e. prequel-era information) when making your case.

TLDR: You've claimed the Empire is the morally/ethically preferable governing body despite the fact it commits the same bad deeds the Republic does on a bigger scale (and with worse consequences) and also commits other evils the Republic specifiically doesn't. That simply doesn't make any sense.

I'll leave it at that, i'm not really in the mood to repeat myself any more.

Well...it's too tempting to respond after all. What the heck.

Incidentally, Bleeters, I agree about the Agent. It's probably the one story on the Imperial side where I felt like the player character was genuinely doing the most they could to "do right" by the galaxy (the LS SW was spoiled by knowing what the Emperor was actually up to, so it felt more like my LS SW was kind of being played).

That's cool.

How about the fact he actually doesn't want to be even the temporary head of the government because he feels inadequate. You also seem to have missed the point of why he sends Zenith away - it's because Zenith is a violent man that will upset any chance at rehabilitation for Balmorrans who collaborated with the Empire. Zenish is upset about it because....he wants to kill the collaborators. Trying to peacefully reintegrate people into Balmorran society so it actually functions isn't a power grab.

What he says is absolutely irrelevant. He was installed by the Republic as President. Period. As for Zenith, no I didn't miss the point. He sends Zenith away because of Zenith's distrustful nature, and yes, the fact that he would destabilize things on Bamorra rather than help Tai consolidate his power.

Right, right..."we shall have peace". You surely understand just how loaded that claim can be.

that only emphasizes the beneficial nature of the consular's presence - to ensure the talks go on in some form to try to broker a deal to make things better. Killing everyone (lol) would just make everything far worse and is something an Imperial or Sith might do.

That was a bit of hyperbole on my part, perhaps. Killing them may not be necessary, as righteous as it may seem, but it doesn't take a genius to know they probably wouldn't resign their positions of privilege willingly.

And the galaxy would have been just fine with the Imperial head of state getting exactly what he planned, were it not for the Knight, right? Again, the Agent (even if you assume they act solely out of some kind of altrustic motivation to save the galaxy) is hardly representative of the Empire, particularly given the rather strange way you tried to downplay the consular.

Granted. You were just being unfair to the Agent. They both save the galaxy on some level.

No, read what I quoted. You specifically stated "most of the citizens in the Core were left to rot". Maybe it was a typo, but it's not supported either way.

Ah, yes. I meant to refer to the outlying worlds as well, but that point was about Coruscant, and it's a fact.

Militarism, at times yes. Though that's largely due to the Empire, you know, invading and causing widespread devastation. Slavery is illegal in the Republic.

Whether you blame the Empire for the Republic's militarism or not, they have shown themselves capable of violence and massacre (heck, both sides get "we'll reward you for killing more" missions, but the Jedi claim to be pacifists when it's all said and done). Anyway, one should judge by actual societal behaviour, not law. If a society practices slavery, as the Republic practices economic slavery, then it doesn't matter what the law says officially. In fact I made the point earlier that it's a more insidious form. The Empire buys people, but the Republic just rents them.

This doesn't make any sense. There's no accepted dissent in the Empire; people who do dissent are jailed/tortured/enslaved/killed. I'm also unclear how "the Republic has a bureaucracy" logically leads to "people are unwilling to change and are pacified" when the Republic storyline includes multiple examples of correcting corruption and Republic citizens/personnel/politicians acknowledging the need to do better.

There's a difference between "I disagree" and "it doesn't make sense". It does. I know the Empire doesn't accept dissent (though as I said they occasionally have little choice in the matter). Again, you have a very narrow conception of what dissent is. It's a simple point---the Republic has learned that it's more effective to allow constant argument between a narrow range of opinions than to outright suppress all dissent.

That would be convincing....if I ever said it was incorruptible. I said I couldn't understand why you seem to think political corruption that is seen as an ill to be cured by the Republic is comparable to Imperial slavery, atrocities and lack of respect for individual life or rights. I understand you're trying to be glib here, but the moral calculus of your argument is...disturbing.

You didn't, but your argument was built on this premise.

Except the only one claiming the Republic is 'morally bankrupt' is you, based on a mixture of conjecture and miapplication of in-game events. You still have yet to provide any kind of coherent reason for why political corruption is worse than an openly violent and morally reprehensible political system that routinely commits abuses worse than the Republic as a matter of course. So far, you've come up with "Well at least they're open about it".

I've made the point clear several times, and I've made it clearly. Whether you choose to read it or not isn't up to me.

I didn't just say "Well, at least they're open about it". I explained how that's advantageous in building a resistance. Hegemony isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and the Republic uses it while the Empire does not try to pacify its citizens in this way. The Empire has a culture that accepts the use of force to bring change. The Republic does not. This is the advantage for those who want to really change the system.

Are you referring to Palpatine? If so, that's utterly irrelevant to discussions about the Republic in this era, don't you think?

Nope, unless you're arguing that the Republic system of government and economy is dramatically different between those times. Fundamentally, it's still rotten at its core.

Leaving that aside, I'm again completely baffled as to how "There's a system in place to deal with corruption that may not always work" is morally worse than "There's no system in place to correct corruption and if you bring it up you are likely to be killed or face other negative consequences".

There's a difference between individual corruption and systemic corruption. You can't simply dismiss corruption in the Republic on the basis that the game doesn't examine the lives of every one of the thousands of Senators in graphic detail. The glimpse they give you is meant to be representative of the larger whole.

Except you haven't made any kind of point other than to balance corruption and bureaucracy against torture, slavery, murder, the lack of legal due process and individual rights (oh, and corruption and bureaucracy) and apparently declared them either equal or somehow determined that the former is worse. That strikes me as a skewed moral scale, not a point.

 

I did. Again, you can choose to ignore it or not, but I did.

 

Except there is involvement and efforts made to improve things in the Republic. There is no legal or political recourse in the Empire. As Elara points out in her conversations, the same Imperials who talk about honor and the rules gladly put them aside when the Sith say so, and questioning that gets your loyalty questioned (and Elara herself was part of the Imperial elite, yet still faced that scrutiny). Your argument also falls flat on its face given the overarching theme of the Republic story is that its various members do come together for the common good and that because of that it enjoys a strength of purpose the Empire can't hope to match.

 

No, there is not. There are efforts to put a bandaid on a broken arm.

 

What quest? And where's the evidence given that the Republic story includes helping many groups that are hardly oligarchs -

 

I don't remember the name, but I know for a fact you talk to a Senator who says that, in essence, money talks in the Republic.

 

Even leaving aside your poorly supported argument about the Republic, how is this a point in the Empire's favor? The Empire is all about oligarchy, and its oligarchs don't even pretend to care about anyone else.

 

Which makes, once again, the Republic all the more sinister because they DO pretend to care.

 

Darth Marr specifically tells you that Sith in-fighting was a severe problem in the intro to Makeb. The Inquisitor story on Corellia revolves around this. The events on Ilum are an example of the Imperial war effort being undermined by a power struggle. The SW storyline's main villain is guilty of undermining the Imperial effort to make a power play.

 

Granted, though they still manage to stall the Republic and have contributed to a lot of the upheaval---pulled back the curtain on the veneer of pacifism and democracy in the Republic.

 

When those people are removed it's because of Sith/political power plays, not any kind of civic duty. (Minor trooper spoilers)

 

Corruption in the Empire can get you removed. In the Republic, it's the black heart of the institutions.

 

 

When you run into Colonel Thorus on Taris, Elara mentions how he committed war crimes against orders Funny, then, that he retains a high rank and is operating on the Empire's behalf.

 

 

True enough.

 

No, you're claiming the Senate is corrupt based on what, the threeish senators out of several thousand that are corrupt.

 

See above. Maybe some day they'll make several thousand quests examining each individual Senator, but I highly doubt that.

 

Direct democracy, I assume? Your language is imprecise here.

 

I'm not the least bit imprecise.

 

Why even mention it? LEaving that aside, the Senate clearly does have procedures in place for dealing with issues, including investigations, trials, etc. Things the Empire doesn't bother with. Of course, the "superior" Empire also doesn't bother with things like individual rights or a participatory political system either.

 

All part of the general point that the Republic puts up a façade of righteousness.

 

Again, your language is imprecise. Having nobles has nothing to do with being a democracy (also, are you talking about ranks of nobility from individual planets here?), unless you think countries like the United Kingdom in the present day world aren't democracies?

 

No, it's a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Your point about nobility just...wow.

 

And you may not think you have a pessimistic view of democracy, but you definitely come across that way, seeing as the Republic has some pretty close parallels to modern day countries.

 

Which are not democracies.

 

This doesn't make any sense on either end. There aren't any people taking up matters of governance in the Empire, they're not allowed to. If they try they get crushed. I have no idea what you're trying to say about the Republic because you're making an argument based on conjecture that has no substantive basis in-game.

 

Not yet, anyway (there is precedent for riots in Kaas City, though. Read it over again, and maybe you'll understand, but otherwise I can't help ya. A genuine democratic society of autonomous citizens is not likely to happen in a playable faction, so all we can do is pick a faction and figure how it could ultimately lead to something better. The Empire is open-ended because we don't know exactly what will become of it, but we know what will happen to the Republic. That is why I am Imperial.

 

Except, of course, the Imperial rigidly enforces that inequality to maintain its political order

 

So does the Republic.

 

I'm not sure how you missed the repeated racist remarks Imperials make, even directly to a non-human (or non-pureblood in some cases) Imperial player character. Talking about Cathar on Taris as feral beasts to be put down? Discussing the inferiority of non-humans to an alien player character (followed by a "Oh, but you are different" line). No offense, but it's hard to take you seriously if you missed such a core aspect of the Empire, one that drives Malgus to declare his own Empire and that Marr addresses as well.

 

Put another way, if there's supposedly no institutionalized racism in the Empire, why is one of Marr's major points the need to set institutionalized racism aside and accepte non-humans that were traditionally discriminated against into the Imperial military?

 

The Cathar aren't Taris weren't opposed because they were Cathar. They were Republic-backed settlers. Anyway, absolutely I never denied that the Empire has a history of institutionalized racism. We both came to the conclusion that it does but there are efforts to reform it.

 

I don't understand why you bring up Palpatine when he has nothing to do with this argument. Ignmoring that, you initially claimed that the Empire was superior because it didn't tolerate corruption and was able to better focus its resources for the war effort. I pointed out that this was incorrect and that, in fact, Sith-infighting and inefficiency was a principal cause for the Imperial defeats thus far in the war.

 

The point about Sith infighting was the only solid argument in this post, so fair enough, though again they can pull together and take the fight to the Republic when needed. As for Palpatine, well, this was responded to earlier.

 

The prequels occur millenia after this game's time period. They're not relevant.

 

The fact that the Republic is corruptible is irrelevant? Hardly. It shows how Republic citizens can be ideologically manipulated, a point which was casually dismissed earlier.

 

I'm not sure what's hard to understand. You take the gangs being on Coruscant to mean "The Republic doesn't care about its citizens and is awful", apparently ignoring the fact that the Republic quests are about the Republic getting its act together to show it does care and does intend to take care of its citizens (a theme reinforced at various points in the consular and trooper storylines in particular). Similarly, you confalte a corrupt Senator with the entire Senate being corrupt, even introducing arguments based on the movie prequels that have nothing to do with the game.

 

Bleeters describes it perfectly, so I'd recommend reading their post. The entire point of the story is that the Republic admits what it did was wrong and tries to make amends. The Imperial side of things is "we should have thought of it first".

 

The Republic admitted that it's massacre of political dissidents on Balmorra was wrong? I never saw/heard that, but of course talk is cheap. As for the points about corruption and gangs and how they are supposedly being dealt with, I've answered that elsewhere.

 

Your second sentence makes no sense, because you seem to confuse "there are nobles in the Republic" with "the nobles/oligarchs run the Republic".

 

Huh? It makes perfect sense. The Republic is at best a Federation of loosely affiliated states of different political structures which send representatives, then, and not a democracy.

 

How about the people of Uphrades? The civilians on Balmorra unjustly thrown in the Gorinth Brig? The war crimes committed on various planets?

 

Again, why is it that openly committing atrocities isn't clearly worse for you than occasional corruption that people admit is wrong and try to fix?

 

See above. Do, or do not. There is no try.

 

Except, the Republic characters do combat corruption multiple times. Refusing to acknowledge that doesn't make it untrue.

 

Claiming it doesn't make it true, because it's not. Again, bandaid on a broken arm. Read again what I posted about killing gang leaders. You don't deal with what creates gangs to begin with.

 

Again, why does that make the Empire preferable in any way? Your entire argument amounts to "Well the Republic deceives people into thinking it's a (democracy so it's worse than the Empire where complaining about corruption gets you enslaved or shot." You seem really hung up on the "insiduous" nature of the Republic's ills while ignoring the substantively worse circumstances the average person in the Empire lives in.

 

Not ignoring it at all. Again, it's easier in a sense to resist an Empire that relies solely on force, not ideological control.

 

Put another way, let's assume every argument you've made about the Republic is true; it's a hypocritical oligarchy that doesn't actually believe in the ideals it claims to espouse.

 

The Empire is guilty of all of the above.

 

1. It's hypocritical - as Elara points out, a lot of Imperials will go on and on about how the Imperial military (and Empire in general) are morally right, honorable etc. (also see Quinn, General Rakton, etc.). Apparently the atrocities and war crimes they commit both of their own volition and at the behest of the Sith don't count, nor does it matter to you that people who point out that hypocrisy are treated as traitors

 

2. It is an oligarchy, run by the Sith who are plenty 'insiduous' themselves and guilty of endless numbers of crimes. Also, the head of the oligarchy, our dear Emperor

 

 

Is trying to wipe out all life in the galaxy for his own purposes.

 

 

So it's an oligarchy run by a bunch of crazy beings with superpowers that have no moral qualms about doing awful things. Fun!

 

3. It doesn't practice the ideals it claims to uphold. See #1. Also consider how often Imperial NPCs blather on about bringing order to the galaxy...whily they run around destroying things 'for the evulz' and undermiining their own Empire as part of power struggles (Corellia, SW storyline, SI storyline, etc.)

 

1. Not a bad point. The Imperials do in a few cases claim to be "morally upright/honourable" and ignore their own atrocities. As a general rule, though, they don't bother with moralistic claims.

 

2. The Emperor...well, I won't spoil it for you. Yes the Empire is an oligarchy, but it doesn't pretend to be a democracy. Internal resistance is more likely, even if it has not yet gotten anywhere. Again, yes this is somewhat speculative, but it has to be because the fate of the Empire (unlike the Republic) is more open-ended.

 

3. Sometimes you have to tear something down in order to build something else in its place.

 

Then let's throw on the greater context - the Empire has institutionalized racism, slavery, corruption, no legal protections for the average citizen, etc.

 

Tell me again how the Empire is a lesser evil when it takes all of the negative traits the Republic has, amplifies them by a power of ten and then throws more stuff onto the pile?

 

Because it will provoke people to change it. The Republic would continue to survive and oppress because it disguises this oppression under "legal protections for the 'average citizen' (a.k.a the guy who owns the megacorporation).

 

In short:

 

1. The Empire's fate is open-ended, and it could form a better society down the road. The Republic, well, we all know what happens there.

 

2. The Republic is an undemocratic regime that enslaves its people to bureaucrats, nobles and corporations rather than Sith. Of course both are terrible, but the former claim to be parts of a "democracy" and is in that way a greater affront to freedom.

 

3. The Republic commits its own war crimes and other atrocities as well (not counting the massacre of dissidents on Belsavis). The Sith flaunt them while the Republic would rather not talk about them (I.e. Belsavis, the Esh'ka, Fleshraiders, the countless citizens of the Coruscanti undercity and servants of Alderaanian noble houses). Hidden atrocities, yeah, are far worse than open atrocities for obvious reasons (i.e. hidden = harder to change and easier to suffer in silence).

1. The Empire's fate is open-ended, and it could form a better society down the road. The Republic, well, we all know what happens there.

I think we already know that the Empire will collapse and be either absorbed into the Republic or simply have its ashes swept away.

2. The Republic is an undemocratic regime that enslaves its people to bureaucrats, nobles and corporations rather than Sith. Of course both are terrible, but the former claim to be parts of a "democracy" and is in that way a greater affront to freedom.

Deeply subjective, and apparently not as terrible to the participants, as to my knowledge we don't see noble or corporate revolts in Republic questlines.

3. The Republic commits its own war crimes and other atrocities as well (not counting the massacre of dissidents on Belsavis). The Sith flaunt them while the Republic would rather not talk about them (I.e. Belsavis, the Esh'ka, Fleshraiders, the countless citizens of the Coruscanti undercity and servants of Alderaanian noble houses).

Flesh Raiders? What? Where were war crimes involved there?

I think we already know that the Empire will collapse and be either absorbed into the Republic or simply have its ashes swept away.

Not necessarily. It could go any number of ways.

Deeply subjective, and apparently not as terrible to the participants, as to my knowledge we don't see noble or corporate revolts in Republic questlines.

Of course its subjective. So is everything the defenders of the Republic say (particularly about 'freedom'). In any case, the terribleness of social practices to participants is not measured by the amount of active revolt. Slave societies and the treatment of women as property went unchallenged for centuries.

Flesh Raiders? What? Where were war crimes involved there?

Not war crimes, but crimes. Slaughter on Tython, or so I've read. Anyway that's just one. The massacring of dissidents on Belsavis is the best example.

Not necessarily. It could go any number of ways.

 

 

 

Of course its subjective. So is everything the defenders of the Republic say (particularly about 'freedom'). In any case, the terribleness of social practices to participants is not measured by the amount of active revolt. Slave societies and the treatment of women as property went unchallenged for centuries.

 

 

 

Not war crimes, but crimes. Slaughter on Tython, or so I've read. Anyway that's just one. The massacring of dissidents on Belsavis is the best example.

I suppose the question is, what is the Empire better at right now that doesn't require metaknowledge of history to say? As I said before in that post you never replied to, the Republic is deeply flawed, but flaws on one side don't make the other side good.

I suppose the question is, what is the Empire better at right now that doesn't require metaknowledge of history to say? As I said before in that post you never replied to, the Republic is deeply flawed, but flaws on one side don't make the other side good.

Oh, I'm sorry I never replied. I honestly didn't see your post...guess it got buried in all the text.

I absolutely agree, though.

Oh, I'm sorry I never replied. I honestly didn't see your post...guess it got buried in all the text.

I absolutely agree, though.

So... why support the Empire at all? Instead of trying to fix the Republic?

LOL! I always liked them because Im not always locked by having to be a goody two-shoes. I also like smugglers and troopers like that. Don't get me wrong I love my jedis but everyones so nice to them its hard for them to really be mean.

MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD

I really enjoy being the sith inquisitor and letting my anger out. I kinda had it in my head that my Sith Inquisitor really liked that girl (corey? something like that) who she calmed when they first met and was later killed, and after that sorta let it fester in her head until she had nothing but hatred for everyone and everything around her. Think about it slave plucked from nowhere to face almost certain death or be killed by some a-hole guy she doesn't even know. I bet she's really sick of her life being in other people's hands. So the first chance she got to let it out was torturing that guy projecting her hate on him, and found out she enjoyed it. Then forced to go on boring repetitive quests to tombs adds to her frustration, setting her up, and dealing with incompetent men and women who command her, She'd probably like to slap every pureblood ever, and kill anyone who ever called her slave in the begining.

I think its fun because anger is an emotion everyone can understand. We all have anger some daily, we even have anger at hard or boring missions. Its great to have your char reflect that and not be forced to do good for people who treat you bad. (My smuggler even though a slacker girl who cares mostly about money, is still out of place being mean but better as a jerk with a heart of gold.) Its really satisfying to treat stuck up commanders and self loving showoffs with no respect and then kill them without remorse. You don't have to be a conventional hero with perfect morals and even can be black and grey if you want. There's also tons of room for char development if you're not into the whole inner peace only persona.

You also get a good amount of control of people around you, people gravel before you, you choose the fates of prisoners, even spooky lords don't scare you, and even can evoke eyerolls. I personally take pleasure in seeing my scrawny little twi'lek reduce powerful masters to sniveling cowards.

Lastly the empire is a bit more mysterious, and a lot more simple. Everyones secretive, every thing is a new mystery. And yet it doesn't require tons of red tape morality. People tell you things you either Believe them or you don't. Empires/dictatorships are simple, the big guy/girl says the people do. Its somewhat comforting in a disturbing way not to always have political debates on ethics. Just care about you and saving your hide and rising above the idiots. Because you know what you want, and even better its encouraged for you to take what you want from life. Its an intriguing prospect that doesn't work in reality but can be experienced in games like this.

Its a great way to expirience stuff that would horrify any sane person and be in control of some of it in a safe way. Its a challenge for people like me who pretty much cover my eyes during horror movies and wish the victims would just chop up the guy with the axe instead of the other way. Thats what my sith inquisitor is, the victim who was pushed too far. And its revenge time

I'm editing my entire post because it's pretty clear any exercise in debate is pointless given your reliance on rhetoric and conjecture. I do want to point out that your definition of democracy is about as narrow as I've ever seen, particularly given that you apparently don't believe representative democracies are, in fact, democracies. All that aside...

Someone else said it perfectly

So... why support the Empire at all? Instead of trying to fix the Republic?

The only thing you've come up with is "The Empire's fate is open-ended" which is a rather unconvincing justification given that the murderous Sith are in charge and the Emperor himself

I'm genuinely baffled as to how a tyranny run by a canonically evil religious order that you have no reason to believe will become benevolent and headed by an omnicidal Emperor, offers the best hope for a better future for the Star Wars galaxy.

Anyway, I'm done with this now.

I'd like to take the oppurtunity to point out that the reason Coruscant's underlevels are in such dire straights is partly because of the destruction of infastructure doing the sacking of Coruscant - homes in the area now controlled by the migrant merchants guild are described as being destroyed in the war, for instance - the associated cost of restoring Coruscant being astronomical, and the fact CorSec has seen numerous cuts in both funding and personel, stretching their resources to the limit and allowing major intergalactic criminal organisations such as the Black Suns and factions such as the Justicars (who are secretly funded and supported by the Empire) to gain such a foothold. Where are CorSecs resources going? Largely the military, which has undergone dramatic expansion and recovery efforts following the last war.

Read into this what you will, but I don't personally see the Republic's inability to recover fully from the devastation of their capital world with a population in the trillions in a few short years as indicitative of some greater institutional corruption. This isn't kotor Taris.

The fact that they still haven't remotely started on their way to rebuilding Taris makes me wanna hit my head against a wall. It's been over 300 years since

To be fair, Taris is located in Imperial space right now, and was always a distant outer rim world before that. It's also full of rakghouls, poisonous waste, wreckage, and not a whole lot else. Considering that the post kotor era Republic was barely clinging to life and took quite some time to recover from the damage Revan and Malak inflicted, I imagine they had other priorities.

From what I remember of what Saresh said during the quests there, the Republic has already expended millions of credits and hundreds of lives just to get where they are. That's not a small committment.

 

From what I remember of what Saresh said during the quests there, the Republic has already expended millions of credits and hundreds of lives just to get where they are. That's not a small committment.

So why did they not put these resources into fixing up their capital? At least the Sith have the excuse of 'making examples of revolts' (the slaves) and have dangers to 'test' themselves against. What is the Republic's excuse?

I found the Jedi Councilor really disappointing, mostly act 2-3.

So why did they not put these resources into fixing up their capital? At least the Sith have the excuse of 'making examples of revolts' (the slaves) and have dangers to 'test' themselves against. What is the Republic's excuse?

I'd love to answer, but a year on and I still have no idea why the Republic is rebuilding Taris.

I'd love to answer, but a year on and I still have no idea why the Republic is rebuilding Taris.

Oh that's easy,

To use as a military staging post for attacks against the heart of the Empire. Just look at it's position, perfect for staging and supplying large scale attacks on the key worlds of the Empire.

I think this shows that the Republic military have a massive say in allocating resources with in the Republic.

Oh that's easy,

 

To use as a military staging post for attacks against the heart of the Empire. Just look at it's position, perfect for staging and supplying large scale attacks on the key worlds of the Empire.

 

I think this shows that the Republic military have a massive say in allocating resources with in the Republic.

If all the Republic military wanted was a staging post against the Empire, there are several worlds that would work better at it, and which wouldn't require astronomical outlays of funds and manpower simply to prevent a base from being overrun. Bandomeer would work; it's also on the Hydian Way at the intersection with the Braxant Run, contains significant mining-related infrastructure, and notably doesn't play host to rakghouls. Botajef would be a similar solution; in addition to its location, the system even played host to a shipyard complex three and a half millennia later, although it's not clear whether it had one as early as SWTOR's time period. And so on.

It's also important to note that the Republic military hierarchy is clearly not fully supportive of the Taris project. General Garza openly mocks the whole thing during the Trooper's class story there, for instance, and judging by the widespread discontent in the Republic's ranks on the planet it's hard to imagine that that discontent wouldn't be mirrored among even more of the Republic's generals. Yes, obviously, some leaders in the Republic military (esp. the War Trust) would have had plenty of reason to back Taris' reconstruction for use as a military base, but it's hard to imagine them getting that done on their own.

Taris was chosen rather because military and political objectives synergized. Saresh and others got their symbol of hope and reconstruction; the War Trust and their ilk got their advance base for staging an assault on the Empire. In that sense, Taris is no more a sign of nefarious Republic militarism than any other project that has garnered funding and support from both military and civilian interests, like the Internet, the American interstate highway system, the Channel Tunnel, or McMurdo Station.

What he says is absolutely irrelevant. He was installed by the Republic as President. Period. As for Zenith, no I didn't miss the point. He sends Zenith away because of Zenith's distrustful nature, and yes, the fact that he would destabilize things on Bamorra rather than help Tai consolidate his power.

 

Right, right..."we shall have peace". You surely understand just how loaded that claim can be.

Firstly, no, he was the last surviving member of an elected government, the Republic endorsement is irrelevant, he is the only person of the previously elected government alive (or at least alive and sane). If anyone else was put in charge then it would be a puppet government, but at moment it is Balmorrans trying to sort out Balmorra.

Secondly, yes it's a loaded claim, but he appears to be trying to fulfill it, and it is what Balmorra needs.

That was a bit of hyperbole on my part, perhaps. Killing them may not be necessary, as righteous as it may seem, but it doesn't take a genius to know they probably wouldn't resign their positions of privilege willingly.

Killing because they might not do something is a flawed argument, killing because they have committed crimes or are dangerous I can understand, but because it's easier. not a good argument.

Granted. You were just being unfair to the Agent. They both save the galaxy on some level.

No she wasn't being unfair to the agent, she said he saved the galaxy, but didn't ascribe he behaviour to benign intentions, because you can easily play the story as a power grab, at least thats how I read it.

Whether you blame the Empire for the Republic's militarism or not, they have shown themselves capable of violence and massacre (heck, both sides get "we'll reward you for killing more" missions, but the Jedi claim to be pacifists when it's all said and done). Anyway, one should judge by actual societal behaviour, not law. If a society practices slavery, as the Republic practices economic slavery, then it doesn't matter what the law says officially. In fact I made the point earlier that it's a more insidious form. The Empire buys people, but the Republic just rents them.

The Republic is fighting an invading Empire, who do you expect us to blame. Can't remember any Jedi actually rewarding you for killing, might be a few cases were they send you to sort out a situation and you end up killing, but they would have accepted a peaceful solution. The Jedi knight even converts a Sith Pureblood if you let him, and the council welcomes him with open arms, they genuinely accept him and beginning training him as a Jedi.

Not sure about the point you're making about slavery though, ignoring the oversimplification of economics, how does force people to work for low wages equate to worse than not paying them at all. Let alone the fact that Imperial slaves have no legal protection from abuse, while even on the worst republic planet they have some, employers can't risk their employees needlessly.

There's a difference between "I disagree" and "it doesn't make sense". It does. I know the Empire doesn't accept dissent (though as I said they occasionally have little choice in the matter). Again, you have a very narrow conception of what dissent is. It's a simple point---the Republic has learned that it's more effective to allow constant argument between a narrow range of opinions than to outright suppress all dissent.

Not as narrow a view as the empire, any discontent is stamped on, a slight political difference means outright war/murder/enslavement. Yes they occassionaly have slave rebellions, which they quickly quell (ie beat up or kill or hit with massive amounts of drugs or chemicals), and then find scapegoats to punish (kill)

I explained how that's advantageous in building a resistance. Hegemony isn't a difficult concept to grasp, and the Republic uses it while the Empire does not try to pacify its citizens in this way. The Empire has a culture that accepts the use of force to bring change. The Republic does not. This is the advantage for those who want to really change the system.

Play the Sith Inquisitor, on Nar Shaddaa you take over a cult using it's influence to do exactly what you're accussing the Republic of doing. Also the Empire only accepts the use of force from the Sith and it's own military, it destroys any other example of strength, or subverts it into it's forces, which does not allow them to change the system.

Nope, unless you're arguing that the Republic system of government and economy is dramatically different between those times. Fundamentally, it's still rotten at its core.

It has corruption, but the majority is not corrupt, even in Palpatines time there was very little corruption, it was just that Palpatine play the politics too well (distinct from corruption as it is the art of compromise which is the fundamental of democracy). No the corruption in the senate is a very small faction, it just fights dirty, rather like the Sith.

There's a difference between individual corruption and systemic corruption. You can't simply dismiss corruption in the Republic on the basis that the game doesn't examine the lives of every one of the thousands of Senators in graphic detail. The glimpse they give you is meant to be representative of the larger whole.

But by the same logic you can't assume that every senator is corrupt, because the game doesn't examine the lives of thousands of senators.

Split for ease to reply

Split for ease to relpy from earlier post

Except you haven't made any kind of point other than to balance corruption and bureaucracy against torture, slavery, murder, the lack of legal due process and individual rights (oh, and corruption and bureaucracy) and apparently declared them either equal or somehow determined that the former is worse. That strikes me as a skewed moral scale, not a point.

I did. Again, you can choose to ignore it or not, but I did.

Not really, you keep coming back to the equivalent of at least they are honest about it, or they they allow the strong to change the system. The first isn't really a good argument, and the second isn't actually true.

No, there is not. There are efforts to put a bandaid on a broken arm.

Yes, but the Imperial equivalent is to let the wound fester.

I don't remember the name, but I know for a fact you talk to a Senator who says that, in essence, money talks in the Republic.

And another senator who's corruption (use gang money) you expose was fighting the big money senators, and she inspired a number of others to stand up for the little man(woman), every political view is shown at some point.

Which makes, once again, the Republic all the more sinister because they DO pretend to care.

How is occassionaly doing something nice for the masses as a political gesture worse than doing nothing???

Granted, though they still manage to stall the Republic and have contributed to a lot of the upheaval---pulled back the curtain on the veneer of pacifism and democracy in the Republic.

Majority of the Republic is peaceful and democratic, Imperial exposure of these scandals only works because theRepblic is democratic, same revelation in the Empire would just get a shrug.

Corruption in the Empire can get you removed. In the Republic, it's the black heart of the institutions.

 

 

When you run into Colonel Thorus on Taris, Elara mentions how he committed war crimes against orders Funny, then, that he retains a high rank and is operating on the Empire's behalf.

 

 

True enough.

Most of the officials in the Republic are corrupt, they only get removed when their corruption impedes the war effort, and sometimes not even then

I'm not the least bit imprecise.

There are thousands of definitions of democracy, the only direct one was in ancient greece, it barely worked then, would not work in any current country due to population size, and certainly wouldn't work on a galactic scale.

All part of the general point that the Republic puts up a façade of righteousness.

No, it tries to be righteous, and it has procedures to correct it when it goes wrong.

No, it's a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy. Your point about nobility just...wow.

Actually we are a democracy, the queen has no power, none, and the house of lords is mostly filled with people selected by the government, to say we are not a democracy is absurd

Which are not democracies.

depends on which countries you mean, i think you'll find more democracies than you imagine.

Split for ease to relpy from earlier post

Not yet, anyway (there is precedent for riots in Kaas City, though. Read it over again, and maybe you'll understand, but otherwise I can't help ya. A genuine democratic society of autonomous citizens is not likely to happen in a playable faction, so all we can do is pick a faction and figure how it could ultimately lead to something better. The Empire is open-ended because we don't know exactly what will become of it, but we know what will happen to the Republic. That is why I am Imperial.

Did you notice what the Imperial response to those riots was??

So does the Republic.

No, the Republic enforces the law, not the social order, people rise through Republic society

The Cathar aren't Taris weren't opposed because they were Cathar. They were Republic-backed settlers. Anyway, absolutely I never denied that the Empire has a history of institutionalized racism. We both came to the conclusion that it does but there are efforts to reform it.

Listen again, the troopers constantly go on about skinning a Cathar

The fact that the Republic is corruptible is irrelevant? Hardly. It shows how Republic citizens can be ideologically manipulated, a point which was casually dismissed earlier.

everybody can be manipulated, it's part of being aware of your surroundings

The Republic admitted that it's massacre of political dissidents on Balmorra was wrong? I never saw/heard that, but of course talk is cheap. As for the points about corruption and gangs and how they are supposedly being dealt with, I've answered that elsewhere.

Yes they did, in several storylines.

Huh? It makes perfect sense. The Republic is at best a Federation of loosely affiliated states of different political structures which send representatives, then, and not a democracy.

No it doesn't, we have nobles in England, they own property and have money, that's the extent of their power. Same in Spain, Portugal, And anywere else in Europe with nobility, they just don't run the show any more.

See above. Do, or do not. There is no try.

You don't respond to the Imperial war crimes mentioned, and use a phrase of Yoda's to dismiss attempts to correct what wrong, bad argument.

Claiming it doesn't make it true, because it's not. Again, bandaid on a broken arm. Read again what I posted about killing gang leaders. You don't deal with what creates gangs to begin with.

Not just claiming it, it is the theme for most of the republic characters,at least if you make the LS choices

Not ignoring it at all. Again, it's easier in a sense to resist an Empire that relies solely on force, not ideological control.

Play the Sith inquisitor, and you'll learn Sith do use Ideological control.

3. Sometimes you have to tear something down in order to build something else in its place.

How is destroying evolution in your subjects building something else???

Because it will provoke people to change it. The Republic would continue to survive and oppress because it disguises this oppression under "legal protections for the 'average citizen' (a.k.a the guy who owns the megacorporation).

No, most laws actually do protect their citizens, just because the people with money are protected to doesn't negate this

In short:

 

1. The Empire's fate is open-ended, and it could form a better society down the road. The Republic, well, we all know what happens there.

 

2. The Republic is an undemocratic regime that enslaves its people to bureaucrats, nobles and corporations rather than Sith. Of course both are terrible, but the former claim to be parts of a "democracy" and is in that way a greater affront to freedom.

 

3. The Republic commits its own war crimes and other atrocities as well (not counting the massacre of dissidents on Belsavis). The Sith flaunt them while the Republic would rather not talk about them (I.e. Belsavis, the Esh'ka, Fleshraiders, the countless citizens of the Coruscanti undercity and servants of Alderaanian noble houses). Hidden atrocities, yeah, are far worse than open atrocities for obvious reasons (i.e. hidden = harder to change and easier to suffer in silence).

In short

1. All societies could develop into anyother form of society

2. Hogswash or something ruder

3. Wrong, being ashamed of your crimes is always better than being shameless

It's probably because almost everyone knows an loves the jedi in the star wars universe, but people want variety and the dark side have a mor colorful story line, plus red sabers:cool:

This.

As far as the political argument goes, which is funny as heck to read, would you rather live in the Empire or the Republic if you had to do the job you do right now?

You have no force powers and the only connections you have are similar ones (i.e. you don't have connections to a General or Admiral unless you in real life do, no patron or mentor unless you have a benefactor) to what you have now.

If you are a student, you are not attending the Sith or Jedi academies, just a school.

Do you really want that guy who puts too much chipotle mayo on that Subway sub for Darth Whatshisface?

With no powerbase, would you rather live in the Empire or Republic?

 

would you rather live in the Empire or Republic?

The Sith Empire is a nation.Check the scientific definition of a nation and how it forms.

The Republic is like the UN but with more prerogatives and powers.You would have to ask ,do you want to be Alderaanian , Corelian or something like that.

When you fight for the Empire,you fight for your country,when you fight for the ''Republic'' you fight for an idea.

So you have to base your answers from there.