Kreia handmaiden's mother?

[Emperor Devon]

Consider for a moment that they may just be dots: just as a series of coincidences throughout history are just coincidences...

 

No, that's not Chris Avellone's style.

 

http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/KOTOR%202/Update%2058/index.html

[JCarter426]

In fact, that's one of the only things that someone in the game comes right out and says--Kreia, in fact. Twice, even.

 

 

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare."

 

and

 

"It is no coincidence. There is some larger plan at work here."

 

That's one of the things about K2: even the smallest details are important.

[Achilles]

That’s a fantastically odd position for you to take, Achilles. There’s as much clear evidence in this fragile theory as there is for Creationism.

Not even close for reasons that I won't go into here for fear of derailing the thread. I'll be happy to take the matter up with you via PM if you'd like to discuss it further.

 

Just because you’ve managed to join some dots doesn’t mean an image was supposed to be there in the first place. Consider for a moment that they may just be dots: just as a series of coincidences throughout history are just coincidences...

Which begs the question: Why would the devs go out of their way to place a bunch of dots that aren't supposed to draw a picture? I suppose that they just coincidentally created all those coincidences.

 

I would like to point out that Kreia is always one for mystery and ambiguity – she gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as Kreia’s personality allows any commentator to manipulate her words to appear as solid facts or else dismiss them as clear lies.

Except that it isn't Kreia weaving this tale, but the writers themselves.

 

In fact, I could spend this post weaving together a number of different pieces of evidence and create an argument that Kreia is, in fact, Krynda Draay – or even Nomi Sunrider. I could make it fairly convincing, at least on the surface, and suddenly such an idea would not seem so farfetched: it's just another way of joining up dots without numbers, after all.

Feel free to do so. I suspect that when you try to put it to paper, it won't work, but I'll be happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.

 

I won’t pick it apart entirely: I don’t have the time.

How convenient.

 

However, I’d like to deal with a few points which have come to my attention:

 

<snip>

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

[nine.roses]

Emperor Devon, consider this: in KotOR, the Revan revelation was streamlined and complete. The penny would drop for the adroit player before reaching even half way through the revelation cutscene. The hints through the game were heavy, yes... but subtle. Arranged together they formed a full picture.

 

However, if it takes 44 screenshots of events spread across two playthroughs of the game for one to twig onto an idea, then that is poor writing indeed. Many of your fellow theorists see the site you have presented me as gospel proof of Kreia's identity. What I see are lines of text taken out of context then arranged to display similarities.

 

In fact, that's one of the only things that someone in the game comes right out and says--Kreia, in fact. Twice, even.

 

 

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare."

 

and

 

"It is no coincidence. There is some larger plan at work here."

 

That's one of the things about K2: even the smallest details are important.

 

That's from the point of view of an in-universe being. Inside the Star Wars universe, to quote (or misquote, as I can't entirely remember) Master Vandar "there are no coincidences, there is only the Force". Which matters for nothing at all when doing an objective dissection of an unknown story element from our point of view: real life coincidences in story writing do occur, and are far from rare.

[Giant Graffiti]

Which begs the question: Why would the devs go out of their way to place a bunch of dots that aren't supposed to draw a picture? I suppose that they just coincidentally created all those coincidences.

What? Who said they were going out of their way?

[Achilles]

Emperor Devon, consider this: in KotOR, the Revan revelation was streamlined and complete. The penny would drop for the adroit player before reaching even half way through the revelation cutscene. The hints through the game were heavy, yes... but subtle. Arranged together they formed a full picture.

Different developer/writer.

 

However, if it takes 44 screenshots of events spread across two playthroughs of the game for one to twig onto an idea, then that is poor writing indeed.

Matter of opinion. I, for one, thought it was great that you got a little bit more of the story each time depending on which perspective you played. Kinda like how real life works.

 

Many of your fellow theorists see the site you have presented me as gospel proof of Kreia's identity. What I see are lines of text taken out of context then arranged to display similarities.

The site? No. Scorchy simply condensed it all onto one page. The credit belongs with the writers, not the guy doing the walkthrough.

 

That's from the point of view of an in-universe being. Inside the Star Wars universe, to quote (or misquote, as I can't entirely remember) Master Vandar "there are no coincidences, there is only the Force". Which matters for nothing at all when doing an objective dissection of an unknown story element from our point of view: real life coincidences in story writing do occur, and are far from rare.

Again, different developers and writers with a different message and world view. Surely you acknowledge this, correct?

 

What? Who said they were going out of their way?

I did. You don't just sit down in front of MS Word and start randomly hitting keys, hoping to get something passable. A story is something that you craft over multiple reviews, edits, etc. The fact that it ended up in the final draft means that they worked to get it there. It didn't just "appear" by mistake.

[JCarter426]

That's from the point of view of an in-universe being. Inside the Star Wars universe, to quote (or misquote, as I can't entirely remember) Master Vandar "there are no coincidences, there is only the Force".

The line you're thinking of is "there is no luck; there is only the Force", spoken by Zhar in K1.

 

Which matters for nothing at all when doing an objective dissection of an unknown story element from our point of view: real life coincidences in story writing do occur, and are far from rare.

Eh...not buying it.

[Giant Graffiti]

I'll put it this way. Does everybody know what Home Improvement is? You never see Al Borland's mother's face. You never see Wilson's face. Therefore they are the same person, right? Try to disprove me.

[Achilles]

I'll put it this way. Does everybody know what Home Improvement is? You never see Al Borland's mother's face. You never see Wilson's face. Therefore they are the same person, right? Try to disprove me.

Actually I don't (I don't watch television). Since I don't have context for the analogy, should I assume that the writers intentionally write in bits that would lead us to suspect that they are the same person? If so, then your conclusion that they are the same person is probably well-founded. If not, then your analogy would seem to argue that since Handmaiden has a mother and that all mothers are female then it's reasonable to assume that Mira is also Handmaiden's mother. All you're presenting is one common feature, so the logic works for both arguments.

 

As for "disproving" you, I'm afraid that the burden of proof is yours.

[nine.roses]

Not even close for reasons that I won't go into here for fear of derailing the thread. I'll be happy to take the matter up with you via PM if you'd like to discuss it further.

 

Very well. Nevertheless, see below for what I said was "fragile evidence".

 

Which begs the question: Why would the devs go out of their way to place a bunch of dots that aren't supposed to draw a picture? I suppose that they just coincidentally created all those coincidences.

 

You're misinterpreting my metaphor, so here's another one: those dots are a few stars in a galaxy full of them. A different picture - another theory - can be drawn from entirely different stars in a different order, but that doesn't make it correct. You say "all those coincidences", but even across the entire argument I only see a few. Most points don't even pass as coincidences.

 

Except that it isn't Kreia weaving this tale, but the writers themselves.

 

You're either just misunderstanding me or else being stubborn. You know you cannot prove to me that the writers clearly intended for this theory of yours to fit. So until Chris Avellone states that Kae is Kreia, I cannot accept that statement.

 

Feel free to do so. I suspect that when you try to put it to paper, it won't work, but I'll be happy to eat my words if I'm wrong.

 

I would, were it not for the fact that "it won't work" means "you cannot convince me with such a method". That said, though I know you as a man who always sticks to his guns, I also recognise that you place a great value on the truth. Should further evidence come to light either for or against this argument, I know I can trust on you to shift your opinion and stand by it.

 

How convenient.

 

Please don't try to antagonise me.

 

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway. My aim with that post was to pick holes in some arguments put forward in this thread.

 

As there is not much evidence for this argument, picking apart every supposition made by various posters previously across the many threads on this topic would be an excersise in futility. I'm sure you recognise the same strong adherance to a single theory in previous threads.

 

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

 

Achilles, look carefully at each line of text in the game and tell me that no other lines have such ambiguous pragmatic meaning just BEGGING for a plot hook to come and attach itself.

 

Different developer/writer.

 

True, quite true. Yet an example, I feel, of how revelations should be done. Nevertheless, I know it's an opinion - and one you can disregard at your leisure.

 

Matter of opinion. I, for one, thought it was great that you got a little bit more of the story each time depending on which perspective you played. Kinda like how real life works.

 

Oh, quite. I enjoyed hearing Mical's past as a female as much as I enjoyed Brianna's as a male. I also love the differences between light side and dark side playthroughs.

 

Yet with every sub-element of the story I can mention in the game, the beginning, middle and end could be encountered in one playthrough of the game. Very nice, very neat. Rather like the character subquests in KotOR, if you don't mind me referring to the prequel again.

 

But it is odd, don't you think, that this hypothetical Arren Kae story would be the only one spread across the two playthroughs?

 

The site? No. Scorchy simply condensed it all onto one page. The credit belongs with the writers, not the guy doing the walkthrough.

 

You rest your entire argument on an assumption that the writers intended your story to exist even though not a single confirmation has been made by them or has been found hiding amongst the dialogue notes.

 

Sir, you cannot second-guess Chris Avellone or put words into his mouth. Until there is actual hard fact, in-universe (which it would seem you would not prefer), or out-of-universe in the form of the actual written words of the writers themselves (a simple "yes", perhaps?), this issue may never be resolved.

 

Many theories have existed on similarly "unshakeable" evidence which has proven to far from unshakeable. This theory is much the same. That said, I'm sure an exponent of the scientific method such as yourself would actually still recognise it as a theory and not a proven fact, yes? Otherwise we would not even be arguing this point: we would be on the same ground.

 

Eh...not buying it.

 

See below. The Force is not responsible for real-life coincidences.

 

Again, different developers and writers with a different message and world view. Surely you acknowledge this, correct?

 

You're avoiding the crux of my point, and furthermore you are wrong: in this case, Kreia's message and view is much the same as Zhar's. (Edit: Yes, thanks JCarter. In any case, "luck" and "coincidence" are in the same boat...). This said, my original point was not about Master Vandar; he was just an illustration.

 

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare"

 

So tell me then, does this statement hold true in reality?

 

I did. You don't just sit down in front of MS Word and start randomly hitting keys, hoping to get something passable. A story is something that you craft over multiple reviews, edits, etc. The fact that it ended up in the final draft means that they worked to get it there. It didn't just "appear" by mistake.

 

Again, you’re assuming that it’s even there at all. The text highlighted by Scorch serves a primary function, to impart the relevant information or else to mislead. This spectre of a secondary function you envisage – as if the developers were trying to tell us something through pragmatic meaning – may only be a figment of your imagination. Arren Kae appears to fill a large empty gap which has otherwise not been dealt with. Your natural reaction is to plug it with a character which seems to fit, and allow the rife ambiguity to mask your assumptions and leaps of faith. This does not mean you are correct. It just means you know how a jigsaw piece can fit in a hole which isn’t its own.

 

…as for "disproving" you, I'm afraid that the burden of proof is yours.

 

You were correct in your dissection of his point but in this case in general, however, the burden of proof is actually on you Achilles.

 

Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers."

Jill: "What is your proof?"

Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers."

 

As demonstrated, the burden of proof is on Bill. To rephrase the above:

 

Achilles: "I think that my theory of Arren Kae and Kreia is correct."

nine.roses: "What is your proof?"

Achilles: "No one has shown me that Chris Avellone did not plan this. Thus, it is correct."

 

I apologise if I sound patronising in doing this: I'd rather know that I've covered it from the right angle than have several pointless posts full of misunderstanding.

 

Finally, I notice you didn't deal with my statements dealing with the content of the argument itself, instead choosing to "<snip>". Should I be led to believe, then, that I am on a correct heading within these select areas of the argument?

[JCarter426]

So tell me then, does this statement hold true in reality?

Indeed it does. Why would the writers include a bunch of unrelated coincidences in a story that claims there's no such thing? That would defeat the whole purpose of the story.

[nine.roses]

Indeed it does.

 

I will skip over the needless foray into how the Force doesn't exist in real life to influence events understood to be "coincidences", as I find it likely you misunderstood due to my indirect handling of the subject. Anyway...

 

Why would the writers include a bunch of unrelated coincidences in a story that claims there's no such thing? That would defeat the whole purpose of the story.

 

Because they didn't know they were coincidences: only the fans created the links. Like I said, they are not all truly coincidences in any case. Some are just mild similarities with speculation attached.

[JCarter426]

Because they didn't know they were coincidences: only the fans created the links. Like I said, they are not all truly coincidences in any case. Some are just mild similarities with speculation attached.

Except that's completely not true. Mr Avellone isn't allowed to comment since canon is no longer in his or Obsidian's hands, but what he has said suggests that it's not just a coincidence.

 

Chris Avellone: Can’t comment, but good catch. Sorry.

 

Yeah, it's ambiguous. Not definitive proof either way, but there's no way these are just unrelated coincidences that the writers unintentionally place into the game.

[nine.roses]

Except that's completely not true... there's no way these are just unrelated coincidences that the writers unintentionally place into the game.

 

As I said to Achilles, the burden of proof is not on me.

 

What he has said suggests that it's not just a coincidence.

 

What he said suggests nothing but what you decide to read into it.

 

Also, moving onto the subject of canon... if Kae was Kreia in the game, if it was canon, LucasArts would let him comment on it. There would be no reason for him to deny the answer to us. Something along the lines of "Well done! I'm glad you discovered that little hidden gem. We worked hard on it."

[Achilles]

Very well. Nevertheless, see below for what I said was "fragile evidence".

You seem to be very willing to say that they are "fragile" but at the same time unwilling to say anything substantive as to why they should be considered such. Case in point:

I won’t pick it apart entirely: I don’t have the time.

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway.

 

More on this later.

 

You're misinterpreting my metaphor, so here's another one: those dots are a few stars in a galaxy full of them.

I'm not missing your metaphor at all. In fact, with each revision your metaphor becomes increasingly untenable. A "galaxy" full of "stars"? How many subplots did the writers throw in here? I'm sure I could probably count a few, but your argument is that there are thousands? None of which linked in any significant way except for how we choose to see them?

 

Okay, let's try this. At what point in the game do any of the characters come right out and tell us specifically what the "mass shadow generator" is? Do they tell us how it was made? What it looked like? Specifics on how it worked?

 

I don't recall seeing any of this, yet I (and I imagine many others) somehow managed to figure it out. Same writing device, different sub-plot, yet no debate. Why not?

 

A different picture - another theory - can be drawn from entirely different stars in a different order, but that doesn't make it correct. You say "all those coincidences", but even across the entire argument I only see a few. Most points don't even pass as coincidences.

Okay. Then why are you here?

 

You're either just misunderstanding me or else being stubborn.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You attempted to divert the discussion by pointing out that Kreia bends the truth, etc. This is a valid observation, but has absolutely nothing to do with any story not being told by her. So either your trying to change the story or you don't understand the implications of the argument that you made.

 

You know you cannot prove to me that the writers clearly intended for this theory of yours to fit. So until Chris Avellone states that Kae is Kreia, I cannot accept that statement.

That's your standard of proof and you're welcome to it. I believe that I addressed people that need smoking guns in an earlier post.

 

[off topic] If I'm ever implicated in a major crime, I hope that you're on my jury.

 

I would, were it not for the fact that "it won't work" means "you cannot convince me with such a method". That said, though I know you as a man who always sticks to his guns, I also recognise that you place a great value on the truth. Should further evidence come to light either for or against this argument, I know I can trust on you to shift your opinion and stand by it.

I'm absolutely convinced by reasonable arguments and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that even though we are currently at a disagreement over this topic.

 

If you do have a case, I would like to see it and if it is persuasive, then it should be accepted (not just by me, but everyone). However without having seen it, it's impossible for any of us to know what it is.

 

Please don't try to antagonise me.

Achilles' Pet Peeve #73,129: People that say "I don't have time to make my argument" (but want to me to accept their argument) instead of just making the argument. My knee-jerk reaction is that said person doesn't actually have an argument and instead wants to insult my intelligence by bull****ing me. I don't think I know anyone who likes it when people try to bull**** them.

 

So please don't antagonize me.

 

I dislike large walls of text, and also dislike spending too long a period preparing an answer which I doubt would convince many anyway. My aim with that post was to pick holes in some arguments put forward in this thread.

This is a double-standard. We should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you, but you shouldn't have to jump through any to convince us of yours.

 

But to your credit, you said that you don't want to make an argument per se, so much as pick holes in ours. Which means this isn't an dialog/exchange of ideas in good faith; It's just you being argumentative.

 

As there is not much evidence for this argument, picking apart every supposition made by various posters previously across the many threads on this topic would be an excersise in futility. I'm sure you recognise the same strong adherance to a single theory in previous threads.

I have no problem with tentative adherence to supportable theories. My problem is blind adherence to poorly formed hypothesis that have no tenable supporting arguments. Luckily, that isn't the case at hand.

 

Achilles, look carefully at each line of text in the game and tell me that no other lines have such ambiguous pragmatic meaning just BEGGING for a plot hook to come and attach itself.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

True, quite true. Yet an example, I feel, of how revelations should be done. Nevertheless, I know it's an opinion - and one you can disregard at your leisure.

As you say then, it's a matter of preference. Just because you don't like the way something is done doesn't mean it hasn't happened though.

 

Oh, quite. I enjoyed hearing Mical's past as a female as much as I enjoyed Brianna's as a male. I also love the differences between light side and dark side playthroughs.

 

Yet with every sub-element of the story I can mention in the game, the beginning, middle and end could be encountered in one playthrough of the game. Very nice, very neat. Rather like the character subquests in KotOR, if you don't mind me referring to the prequel again.

I disagree that this happened. I think they all tied into the same narrative but from different perspectives. They aren't separate stories as you seem to suggest.

 

But it is odd, don't you think, that this hypothetical Arren Kae story would be the only one spread across the two playthroughs?

It isn't. It just happens to be the one you're being the most critical of.

 

You rest your entire argument on an assumption that the writers intended your story to exist even though not a single confirmation has been made by them or has been found hiding amongst the dialogue notes.

Again, smoking gun. Some people need them. Others don't.

 

Sir, you cannot second-guess Chris Avellone or put words into his mouth. Until there is actual hard fact, in-universe (which it would seem you would not prefer), or out-of-universe in the form of the actual written words of the writers themselves (a simple "yes", perhaps?), this issue may never be resolved.

Again, standards of proof. You need a smoking gun. I do not.

 

Many theories have existed on similarly "unshakeable" evidence which has proven to far from unshakeable. This theory is much the same. That said, I'm sure an exponent of the scientific method such as yourself would actually still recognise it as a theory and not a proven fact, yes? Otherwise we would not even be arguing this point: we would be on the same ground.

Once again, you seek to drag the thread off topic. Distraction perhaps?

 

The scientific method is process of making observations (i.e. gathering "facts", which go in the front in, not out the back end as you erroneously assert above), forming hypothesis to explain said observations, then testing the hypothesis via various means to see if they hold up to scrutiny.

 

Interestingly, this process is precisely what was used to come to this conclusion. Observations were made during game play. Hypothesis were formed. Predictions were made and tested (for instance, if Kreia were Handmaiden's mother, then we would need some other evidence pointing to her being Master Kae as well. Lo and behold, we get some. A lot if you play as a female). So if hypothesis can be tested and passes, then the resulting Theory is scientifically sound.

 

Now if you can find a flaw with the methodology or evidence which disproves the Theory (which is what science does; it rules out or disproves hypothesis based on evidence), then you have a case. Waving your arms around an crying about how you don't like the end result or don't believe that is says what it does is neither helpful nor persuasive.

 

You're avoiding the crux of my point,

No, I'm not. You presented the work of a different writer as a valid argument against the story created by this one. Unrelated. That is neither my fault nor my doing.

 

"True - but as one trained in the Force, you know that true coincidences are rare"

You seem to be making my point for me.

 

So tell me then, does this statement hold true in reality?

My personal opinions about reality have very little do with the dramatic license taken in a fictional work. Hint: We don't really have lightsabers or hyperspace travel either.

 

Finally, I notice you didn't deal with my statements dealing with the content of the argument itself, instead choosing to "<snip>". Should I be led to believe, then, that I am on a correct heading within these select areas of the argument?

Oh, I absolutely did. I simply dismissed them all at once instead of one by one. Here is my comment again. I hope it helps (emphasis added so that we can avoid further confusion):

 

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

 

Thanks for reading.

 

You were correct in your dissection of his point but in this case in general, however, the burden of proof is actually on you Achilles.

For his argument? It absolutely is not.

 

As demonstrated, the burden of proof is on Bill. To rephrase the above:

<snipped example>

Except that you're using the wrong example. The burden of proof for "Bill's" claim is on Bill.

 

GiygasUnlimited presented a claim and then asked me to disprove it. The burden of proof for his claim is on him. It is not on me. That was the point. I hope this helps.

 

I apologise if I sound patronising in doing this: I'd rather know that I've covered it from the right angle than have several pointless posts full of misunderstanding.

No, you don't sound patronizing at all. You do sound as though you're having a small measure of difficulty keeping track of all of the various arguments that are being made and what they are in relation to.

[nine.roses]

You said:

 

You seem to be very willing to say that they are "fragile" but at the same time unwilling to say anything substantive as to why they should be considered such.

 

If you do have a case, I would like to see it and if it is persuasive, then it should be accepted (not just by me, but everyone). However without having seen it, it's impossible for any of us to know what it is.

 

Pet peeve: People that say "I don't have time to make my argument" (but want to me to accept their argument) instead of just making the argument.

 

BUT!:

 

All of these can be addressed by the point I've already made: why would the devs place all these "dots" where they did if they're not related? Lack of something better to do?

 

So what’s the point in me furthering my argument? Should I even both copying and pasting Shem’s big ol’ heap of an argument into this thread?

 

We made points tackling the veracity of your claims; their fragility. Yet you are so confident you are right, you haven’t actually dealt with a single one. You say you want a case against which the veracity of your argument can be tested, but then you dismiss it because it doesn't corroborate your view. You never bothered to confront my points for their individual merits.

 

You just simply do not recognise the possibility that those dots were never intended to be connected in such a manner. That there is no pattern to them at all. That they were intended to perform their primary function, and not be given a hidden meaning. That they are not special points in the storyline. My metaphor having failed at its purpose, I have tried to tell you in another manner: but still you fail to understand, and simply cannot grasp the concept. You may be hearing me, but you certainly aren't listening to me.

 

I cannot present a full case, Achilles, until you get over the above hurdle. All my points will simply be dismissed by the above comment a third time...

 

This is a double-standard. We should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you, but you shouldn't have to jump through any to convince us of yours. But to your credit, you said that you don't want to make an argument per se, so much as pick holes in ours. Which means this isn't an dialog/exchange of ideas in good faith; It's just you being argumentative.

 

Then we are both guilty. I’m having to jump through a hoop just so you’ll even consider my original evidence against your theory. You say “we should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you”, yet I haven’t seen you do anything but bat away my comments like stray flies.

 

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you. If you are willing to testify in this thread that your theory is unequivocally correct, then it is down to you to prove it. However, as you have conveniently said this is obviously a "no smoking gun" scenario with only circumstantial evidence, this is proving extremely difficult and thus has resulted in an unfortunate degree of frustration.

 

Okay, let's try this. At what point in the game do any of the characters come right out and tell us specifically what the "mass shadow generator" is? Do they tell us how it was made? What it looked like? Specifics on how it worked?

 

I don't recall seeing any of this, yet I (and I imagine many others) somehow managed to figure it out. Same writing device, different sub-plot, yet no debate. Why not?

 

We didn't need any one of those factors. We are told who made it, what it does, and its role in the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars. We know it requires a great amount of power to function, and that it is a machine that was still apparently servicable a decade after its previous use. What else do we need to know, really? It serves its function in the story without one having to burrow deep for more clues. You'll notice that ALL of the above are answered directly in the story, not indirectly. We are told a pear is a pear. No sleuthing required.

 

Okay. Then why are you here?

 

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Could you elaborate, please?

 

I didn't misunderstand you at all. You attempted to divert the discussion by pointing out that Kreia bends the truth, etc. This is a valid observation, but has absolutely nothing to do with any story not being told by her. So either you're trying to change the story or you don't understand the implications of the argument that you made.

 

I am not changing the story. I'm just pointing out that certain traits within a (admittedly well-written) character may lead you to see details in the speech written for her... which simply aren't there. You are crediting the writers in writing in another layer of meaning, but your claim has not been adequately substantiated by them or anyone else. I could have written it differently, like so:

 

"I would like to point out that the writers have written Kreia as a character shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, and her dialogue is often constructed to be extremely vague. Thus, the way in which the character has been written gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as the myriad possibilities for hidden meaning allows any commentator to manipulate the dialogue written for her to appear as solid facts for their case or else dismiss them as the biased falsehoods of a clearly unreliable narrator."

 

[off topic] If I'm ever implicated in a major crime, I hope that you're on my jury.

 

You make it sound like you'd need Hercule Poirot to solve the case. This I doubt. Nevertheless, I'd need more than light circumstantial evidence to see anyone convicted. Otherwise... I could be putting an innocent man away, couldn't I? We wouldn't want a miscarriage of justice.

 

I'm absolutely convinced by reasonable arguments and I very much appreciate you acknowledging that even though we are currently at a disagreement over this topic.

 

Thank you. I hope we’ll get over this disagreement soon then. 

 

I have no problem with tentative adherence to supportable theories. My problem is blind adherence to poorly formed hypothesis that have no tenable supporting arguments. Luckily, that isn't the case at hand.

 

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We seem to have differences over what we consider a “poorly formed hypothesis”.

 

I disagree that this happened. I think they all tied into the same narrative but from different perspectives. They aren't separate stories as you seem to suggest.

 

Well, I disagree that they are intertwined to such a degree as you imply. With Brianna and Mical, we don't have to remember anything then play it a second time - differently - to come to a conclusion. Are you saying that this Kae/Kreia thing operates at a higher level? Like it’s a prize for the most attentive analysts?

 

It isn't. It just happens to be the one you're being the most critical of.

 

If you are willing to say such a thing, then you should no doubt be willing to enlighten me as to what these similar hidden storylines are.

 

Once again, you seek to drag the thread off topic. Distraction perhaps?

 

Off topic? Of course not. What I said was entirely on-topic: your theory is a theory. It has not been proven. It is not definite.

 

(i.e. gathering "facts", which go in the front end, not out the back end as you erroneously assert above)

 

A truth, a fact; call it what you will. A proven theory is factual in nature. There is no “well, possibly but maybe not” to it.

 

The scientific method is process of making observations, forming hypothesis to explain said observations, then testing the hypothesis via various means to see if they hold up to scrutiny.

 

I'm holding this up to scrutiny, and it seems extremely fishy to me. If you need to be an expert at deduction and follow a rather unusual path of gameplay to come to this conclusion... in a game full of hidden surprises, falsehoods and mysteries then you are impressive indeed. Were it not for Scorch, then most of the people in this thread would have spent years playing through the game without ever tagging on.

 

Tell me truthfully: was it just in two playthroughs that you tagged onto this revelation? Four, perhaps? A year? Or only when you read the Wookieepedia entry on Arren Kae? It doesn't sound like a true theory, it sounds like a false lead.

 

Interestingly, this process is precisely what was used to come to this conclusion. Observations were made during game play. Hypothesis were formed. Predictions were made and tested (for instance, if Kreia were Handmaiden's mother, then we would need some other evidence pointing to her being Master Kae as well. Lo and behold, we get some. A lot if you play as a female). So if hypothesis can be tested and passes, then the resulting theory is scientifically sound.

 

The scientific method requires accuracy. You may be a scientist and philosopher, and as I have discovered you are strong in your field. But I do not think you are truly a scholar of language.

 

Was it, to a great degree, a fair test? Did you foray into various possible pragmatic meanings; analyse the syntax of the sentences so that there was no doubt as to the clarity of your findings? Did you study the context within which each statement was set (both in terms of the physical location of all appropriate characters if applicable, and in terms of the tone of the conversation in general), and determine from this that some statements indeed had elements that were out of place with the general message of the utterance? Did you study the sequence in which the various elements of the revelation were made (if there was any at all), and determine from this whether it followed normal literary convention and thus was stronger or weaker for it? Did you value each comment based on its reliability? Did you truthfully do all of this without an unacceptable degree of bias?

 

This is the effort to which you must go in such a situation as this, where there is no “smoking gun” as you say; no direct reference. Otherwise your method counts for nothing.

 

Let’s test.

 

For your reference, this is what Scorch put on his site as key evidence (the other stuff is simply fuel):

 

Kreia: “But that is my belief, since I knew Revan long ago… as a master knows their apprentice… He came to me, yes. Both before and after he knew himself… But in the end, he turned back to me. When he realised there was nothing more to be learned from the Jedi – except how one could leave them forever… I knew her mother. She was a Jedi Knight. A master – named Arren Kae. She joined the Mandalorian Wars after the shame of her birth was revealed… Revan welcomed her. She was said to be a skilled warrior. Beautiful. And strong in the Force.”

 

Mical: “Revan had many masters, Zhar, Dorak, Master Kae before Kae left for the Wars. Towards the end of his training, he sought out many to learn techniques. It is said that he returned to his first master at the end of his training, in order to learn how he might best leave the order.”

 

He seemed content with this, but to be fair we must also consider these items:

 

Mical: “Revan had many masters, including Zhar, Kae, and Dorak... and towards the end of the training, Revan sought out many other teachers to learn certain techniques. And it is said that he went to his first - and final - master to learn how to leave the order entirely, as she had. (After Kreia interrupts and wipes his mind). I do not recall who Revan's master was... strange.”

 

Before I go on… could you kindly direct me to any other quotes that I have missed? I’d like to be extremely precise in this.

 

No, I'm not. You presented the work of a different writer as a valid argument against the story created by this one. Unrelated. That is neither my fault nor my doing.

 

Avellone followed the selfsame guidelines. My argument was not based around Zhar’s quote: I could quite easily have not included it and have my argument stand on Kreia’s quotes alone.

 

You seem to be making my point for me.

 

The coincidences we were talking about were coincidences in elements of text written by Obsidian writers. “But as one trained in the Force” indicates that the Force stands in for coincidences. In that universe, it may be true. In this one, the Force does not exist so therefore the following statement “you know that true coincidences are rare” is not true based on that premise.

 

There are coincidences in the dialogue of KotOR II. That’s not the Force, that’s human error.

 

For his argument? It absolutely is not.

 

I apologise for not being clear. The burden of proof is on you in this case in general. I had thought you'd understand thanks to my illustration.

 

The burden of proof for "Bill's" claim is on Bill.

 

Exactly... and you are in the position of Bill:

 

Achilles: "I think that my theory of Arren Kae and Kreia is correct."

nine.roses: "What is your proof?"

Achilles: "No one has shown me that Chris Avellone did not plan this. Thus, it is correct."

 

No, you don't sound patronizing at all. You do sound as though you're having a small measure of difficulty keeping track of all of the various arguments that are being made and what they are in relation to.

 

No, I just suppose I am not being clear and that you are constantly misunderstanding the gist of my messages. I had thought I was mostly precise in my prose, but from your reactions it would seem that I am not.

 

That's your standard of proof and you're welcome to it. I believe that I addressed people that need smoking guns in an earlier post.

 

I do not believe anything in which there is an unreasonable amount of doubt. These "hints" are too light, too vague - I do not require the gun, but perhaps a little smoke. And, at least, a gunshot wound...

[Achilles]

So what’s the point in me furthering my argument?

Your point is either worth presenting or it is not. If you think that it is not, then that is fine, however we're under no obligation to roll over for an argument that you don't feel is worth presenting.

 

Should I even both copying and pasting Shem’s big ol’ heap of an argument into this thread?

I don't see Shem's posts, so I don't know what his arguments are.

 

We made points tackling the veracity of your claims; their fragility.

Saying that you've done something and actually doing it are two completely separate things.

 

Yet you are so confident you are right, you haven’t actually dealt with a single one.

Because you haven't presented anything substantive. Your entire case (as presented) is "those are all just coincidences". No explanation as to why we should agree and no rebuttals to the counter arguments that they are not coincidences.

 

You say you want a case against which the veracity of your argument can be tested, but then you dismiss it because it doesn't corroborate your view.

Doesn't corrobrate the evidence. Big difference.

 

We know what was said. That can't be changed. What ever hypothesis you want to drum up has to at least take into account what is there. Simply dismissing it as coincidence isn't persuasive (for the record, I am not stating that it cannot be a coincidence, simply I have no reason to believe that it is and many reasons to believe that it is not).

 

You never bothered to confront my points for their individual merits.

I didn't need to, as they all were addressed by the counter argument that I've presented twice and you've yet to respond to once.

 

You just simply do not recognise the possibility that those dots were never intended to be connected in such a manner.

Of course I recognize the possibility. It's possible that a team of monkeys could have randomly typed those lines in while everyone was on a Starbucks run and no one caught it. I guess the real question is how probable that is.

 

That there is no pattern to them at all.

Says you.

 

That they were intended to perform their primary function

Which was? This is important, so please answer.

 

...and not be given a hidden meaning.

Says you.

 

That they are not special points in the storyline.

Says you. Please present supporting evidence for your claim. You have the burden of proof for supporting your argument. It is not up to any of us to disprove it (although we could be showing, as we have already, that there is at lease one plausible pattern).

 

My metaphor having failed at its purpose, I have tried to tell you in another manner: but still you fail to understand, and simply cannot grasp the concept. You may be hearing me, but you certainly aren't listening to me.

Nice dodge.

 

I cannot present a full case, Achilles, until you get over the above hurdle. All my points will simply be dismissed by the above comment a third time...

Perhaps that denotes an issue with the strength of your case (the one you haven't presented because you don't have time...even though you have time to argue with me).

 

Then we are both guilty. I’m having to jump through a hoop just so you’ll even consider my original evidence against your theory. You say “we should jump through countless hoops to prove our argument to you”, yet I haven’t seen you do anything but bat away my comments like stray flies.

I'm not sure what this means. The case for Kreia being Kae has already been presented to you. No double standard exists on this end.

 

Furthermore, the burden of proof is on you.

For my claim. Yes, that's correct. The evidence for my case has been presented a few times, although not by me. I fully endorse Scorchy's conclusions.

 

If you are willing to testify in this thread that your theory is unequivocally correct, then it is down to you to prove it.

That's fine. However the same applies to your case. So please, feel free to dispense with the distractions at any time.

 

However, as you have conveniently said this is obviously a "no smoking gun" scenario with only circumstantial evidence, this is proving extremely difficult and thus has resulted in an unfortunate degree of frustration.

For people that need a smoking gun, yes, I imagine it would be. I guess that's where reasonable doubt comes in and all that. Again, if I'm ever on trial, I hope to see you in my jury box.

 

We didn't need any one of those factors. We are told who made it, what it does, and its role in the final battle of the Mandalorian Wars. We know it requires a great amount of power to function, and that it is a machine that was still apparently servicable a decade after its previous use. What else do we need to know, really?

I feel my point being made for me.

 

It serves its function in the story without one having to burrow deep for more clues. You'll notice that ALL of the above are answered directly in the story, not indirectly. We are told a pear is a pear. No sleuthing required.

I disagree on all counts. Which is why I raised that point. You were able to put the pieces together on your own and now have a narrative that you're willing to stand behind even though you were not spoon fed all the pieces. Some of us have done the same thing with other parts of the story.

 

I don't quite understand what you're trying to get at with this question. Could you elaborate, please?

That if you go back and look, you'll find that we're told much less about the MSG than you recall. But still you managed to put together what you were supposed to and having done it have a much clearer picture than the pieces provided. Yet we're not debating that.

 

I am not changing the story. I'm just pointing out that certain traits within a (admittedly well-written) character may lead you to see details in the speech written for her... which simply aren't there. You are crediting the writers in writing in another layer of meaning, but your claim has not been adequately substantiated by them or anyone else. I could have written it differently, like so:

 

"I would like to point out that the writers have written Kreia as a character shrouded in mystery and ambiguity, and her dialogue is often constructed to be extremely vague. Thus, the way in which the character has been written gives you a lot of leverage to insert any theory you would like about her, especially as the myriad possibilities for hidden meaning allows any commentator to manipulate the dialogue written for her to appear as solid facts for their case or else dismiss them as the biased falsehoods of a clearly unreliable narrator."

This is completely unrelated to anything, as Kreia isn't the one telling the story. So again, you're are either changing the story or missing the point.

 

You make it sound like you'd need Hercule Poirot to solve the case. This I doubt. Nevertheless, I'd need more than light circumstantial evidence to see anyone convicted. Otherwise... I could be putting an innocent man away, couldn't I? We wouldn't want a miscarriage of justice.

I don't think it's me that needs a private investigator

 

Again, by dismissing the evidence that is there as "light" you act as though you can simply wish it away. Handmaiden doesn't accidentally have two braids just like Kreia. None of the pieces of the puzzle introduced by the various characters made it into the final draft haphazardly. You make it sound like the writers just threw a bunch of words against a wall without any thought to craft or intent whatsoever. I think this is a particularly stubborn opinion to hold which does nothing to help you or your case.

 

Thank you. I hope we’ll get over this disagreement soon then.

 

I suppose it's a matter of opinion. We seem to have differences over what we consider a “poorly formed hypothesis”.

Indeed.

 

Well, I disagree that they are intertwined to such a degree as you imply. With Brianna and Mical, we don't have to remember anything then play it a second time - differently - to come to a conclusion. Are you saying that this Kae/Kreia thing operates at a higher level? Like it’s a prize for the most attentive analysts?

Of course you do. You don't get the "mother" part of the story without playing as a male (and talking to Handmaiden) and you don't get much of the "Master Kae" part of the story without playing as a female (and talking to Disciple). So, if you call that "operating at a higher level", then yes, I'm saying that. And yes, I imagine that many people who enjoy figuring things out for themselves and/or appreciate storytellers that don't beat them over the head with subplots would see this as a reward.

 

If you are willing to say such a thing, then you should no doubt be willing to enlighten me as to what these similar hidden storylines are.

I made mention of the MSG earlier. Another might be Hanharr's backstory.

 

Off topic? Of course not. What I said was entirely on-topic: your theory is a theory. It has not been proven. It is not definite.

You keep elluding to my discussions on the topic of religion. If you could stop, that would be great.

 

A truth, a fact; call it what you will. A proven theory is factual in nature. There is no “well, possibly but maybe not” to it.

No such thing. All science is tentative. But facts still go in the front in, not out the back end. Theories are models of understanding and can always be changed with new evidence (i.e. new facts).

 

I'm holding this up to scrutiny, and it seems extremely fishy to me.

That's fine. Tell us why? Otherwise you're simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. In other words, either you have an argument or you do not.

 

If you need to be an expert at deduction and follow a rather unusual path of gameplay to come to this conclusion... in a game full of hidden surprises, falsehoods and mysteries then you are impressive indeed. Were it not for Scorch, then most of the people in this thread would have spent years playing through the game without ever tagging on.

You assume much. You set the bar much higher than it needs to be and you assume that no one figured this out before him.

 

I think he did a great job of summarizing it, but I think you're wrong to assume that he was first.

 

Tell me truthfully: was it just in two playthroughs that you tagged onto this revelation? Four, perhaps? A year? Or only when you read the Wookieepedia entry on Arren Kae?

I've played the games dozens of times. I don't recall the exact playthrough, but for what it's worth I only read Scorchy's walkthrough a few months ago. I hope that helps.

 

It doesn't sound like a true theory, it sounds like a false lead.

And you are certainly welcome to your opinion. However your opinion alone is insufficient to convince me of anything, let alone that all the evidence that we have for this theory over here is wrong.

 

The scientific method requires accuracy. You may be a scientist and philosopher, and as I have discovered you are strong in your field. But I do not think you are truly a scholar of language.

What does this have to do with anything?

 

You aren't judge and jury here.

 

Was it, to a great degree, a fair test? Did you foray into various possible pragmatic meanings; analyse the syntax of the sentences so that there was no doubt as to the clarity of your findings? Did you study the context within which each statement was set (both in terms of the physical location of all appropriate characters if applicable, and in terms of the tone of the conversation in general), and determine from this that some statements indeed had elements that were out of place with the general message of the utterance? Did you study the sequence in which the various elements of the revelation were made (if there was any at all), and determine from this whether it followed normal literary convention and thus was stronger or weaker for it? Did you value each comment based on its reliability? Did you truthfully do all of this without an unacceptable degree of bias?

Again, you're setting the bar much higher than it needs to be. You can attempt to gish gallop all you'd like, but setting up false goalposts isn't going to accomplish much.

 

Instead of wasting your time with diversionary tactics, perhaps you should just sit down and tell us what your counter theory is so that we can have something to compare our theory against. Please make sure that it explains all the evidence that is available, otherwise it won't be much of a theory. Thanks in advance.

 

This is the effort to which you must go in such a situation as this, where there is no “smoking gun” as you say; no direct reference. Otherwise your method counts for nothing.

No it isn't and I think you know it.

 

Let’s test.

Let's.

 

For your reference, this is what Scorch put on his site as key evidence (the other stuff is simply fuel):

 

<snip>

 

I don't think you get to decide that, but okay.

 

Before I go on… could you kindly direct me to any other quotes that I have missed? I’d like to be extremely precise in this.

Nope. You cited Scorchy's walkthrough and then dismissed everything else as "simply fuel". You made your bed, now lie in it. Don't wiggle out of your argument by asking me to track down lines of dialog from a game that takes 40 hours to play.

 

Avellone followed the selfsame guidelines. My argument was not based around Zhar’s quote: I could quite easily have not included it and have my argument stand on Kreia’s quotes alone.

So it's okay to channel Avellone (or at least divine his intentions) when you do it, but not for anyone else? Double standard again.

 

Since you did not address my rebuttal, I think it stands.

 

The coincidences we were talking about were coincidences in elements of text written by Obsidian writers. “But as one trained in the Force” indicates that the Force stands in for coincidences. In that universe, it may be true. In this one, the Force does not exist so therefore the following statement “you know that true coincidences are rare” is not true based on that premise.

 

There are coincidences in the dialogue of KotOR II. That’s not the Force, that’s human error.

And this is a stretch. Again, the writers didn't simply throw sentences together without any thought to the story or intent. That isn't how the writing process works and if someone who took Honor's English in college knows that then I can only imagine that a self-appointed "scholar of language" such as yourself would know that as well.

 

The author is saying that true coincidences are rare and that someone that has been trained to be in-tune with the fabric of universe itself should be aware of this. "I would expect this kind of thinking from someone that didn't know better. Not from someone like you that should".

 

I apologise for not being clear. The burden of proof is on you in this case in general. I had thought you'd understand thanks to my illustration.

No that wasn't clear at all because that wasn't the context of the conversation. But your apology for taking the conversation out of context and thereby trying to change the subject is accepted.

 

Exactly... and you are in the position of Bill:

In the vein that you just introduced, yes. In the context of the conversation you butted into, no. In that conversation, GiygasUnlimited is Bill. Please try to keep up.

 

No, I just suppose I am not being clear and that you are constantly misunderstanding the gist of my messages. I had thought I was mostly precise in my prose, but from your reactions it would seem that I am not.

I can give a line-by-line analysis if you'd like, however you might find it embarrassing. Perhaps it would simply be best to stand by your apology for the misunderstanding and let the matter lie?

 

I do not believe anything in which there is an unreasonable amount of doubt. These "hints" are too light, too vague - I do not require the gun, but perhaps a little smoke. And, at least, a gunshot wound...

All of those have been presented and still you doubt. You've said it yourself: You require something clear and blatant from Chris Avellone and nothing else will do. So "reasonable doubt" doesn't even factor, because you've already stated that you require a smoking gun.

 

And again, that's your right. However that doesn't give you the right to tell everyone that disagrees with you that they are wrong.

[Platinumboi]

There's no way that Kreia is that young.

 

What do you mean there is no way Kreia is that young, if the game developer says she's that old, then she's that old obviously. There's really no debating it....

[TKA-001]

Canon is determined by what the canon sources show, not what a dude who made it says. Besides, he only said she was likely to be ~50 as of K2, so even if you follow the rule that what a person says overrules what is shown, her age is still simply unknown, at best.

[Druganator]

I'm pretty sure that it's pretty obvious if you play through one time as a male that Kreia is Kae and handmaidens mother i mean she hated the fact that handmaiden was on board because she's her daughter and part of he (if not the entire) reason she was expelled from the jedi order, and the whole thing about Revan returning to his first master Kae. Kreia says in the end he returned to me his first master.

[Emperor Devon]

Why wasn’t that revealed in the game itself?

 

Wasn't relevant to the main plot, and Avellone hasn't ever been one to make things explicit in his games*. I've my own suspicion that he likes to keep fans guessing.

 

*Heck, it took me 3.5 years until after I'd played TSL to have what I'd (now) consider a solid grasp of the plot. And that's mostly thanks to Scorchy's LP. I just wish I'd read it before my interview with him.

 

Kreia died, end of story. What would be the point of not revealing it after the game’s events

 

Because it was never intended to be (explicitly) revealed.

 

because now it becomes a side issue which really weakens the plot behind it if it were true.

 

How so?

 

Why hasn’t it been revealed after 3 ½ years since the game has been released? What are they waiting for?

 

See the reply above my previous one.

 

Could you imagine if they were to leave hints about the Revan revelation, but never actually revealed in K1, but revealed in TSL?

 

That would be called leaving the game unfinished*. Kreia's identity, again, is irrelevant to TSL's main plot.

 

* Actually, if enough references were cleaned up KotOR could still have a solid plot without the PC being Revan. Albeit a terrible one lacking in any meaning and deeper themes (or at least as deep as KotOR's were able to get).

 

The female Exile is now considered the canon way of playing the game.

 

As we don't know at what point LA decided a female Exile was canon that's not something we can postulate on. I'd be inclined to guess they decided after the game was released, as there are numerous references in the game's dialogue files that refer to the Exile as male. That or the devs simply didn't like a female Exile being canon and showed their disregard for the idea in their dialogues. Either way it debunks the idea Avellone was writing with canon in mind (something I can't ever see him doing, given how much he values player choice).

 

The hints used to support the theory they’re the same person are easily debunked

 

Let's see you debunk them, then. For ease of reference, here they all are in a nutshell: http://fromearth.net/LetsPlay/KOTOR%202/Update%2058/index.html

 

We were told that no twists were going to be in TSL. There’s a hint left in one of the dialogue files about that

 

Good thing Kreia being Aren Kae isn't a 'Luke I'm your dad!'-level twist.

 

Kreia makes it clear that she was cast out because of her teachings and beliefs. It was also stated that Kae was exiled for having a child. It was also stated that Kae was exiled for having a child.

 

Neither are exclusive reasons. It could very well have been both and probably was.

 

In TSL, it was clear that Kreia is against love

 

Against the Exile being in love, sure, but what makes you think that? (And as so much of Kreia's character rests on her being a hypocrite I doubt she was.)

 

If she did believe in love, she wouldn’t have changed her mind about it because that would prove in her mind that one of the Jedi teachings was correct

 

I think Kreia would've been smart enough to realize what that was.

 

If there were any issues she agreed with the Jedi on; it would be teachings she already believed in before her exile.

 

Being? Kreia hates the Jedi. And the Sith, too, to be fair.

 

Kreia was on a mission to prove that she was right and the Jedi were wrong.

 

Kudos goes to you for recognizing that. Everything she does in the game stems from self-actualization.

 

Kreia serving under Revan during the Mandalorian Wars is something I can’t picture her doing.

 

Given that we hear it from Kreia, I'd take it with a grain of salt. Especially since she wouldn't have benefited from telling the Exile the truth.

 

I believe it was stated that the Jedi thought Kreia “died” during the Mandalorian Wars; never stating she was killed.

 

I am relatively certain being killed was the leading cause of death in the Mandalorian Wars.

 

Kreia hates Atris with a passion.

 

How did you figure that? I got the impression she's more bemused with her than anything else.

 

Why would she want to leave her child with Atris of all people?

 

The hatred you think she has for Atris aside, because Kreia had no control over the Handmaiden at that point. In fact as we see in the game it served her purposes to have the Handmaiden serve Atris.

 

I have a great respect for those who can accept the truth when it’s presented in front of them, even if they don’t like it.

 

I'm glad to hear it.

[Rev7]

I am relatively certain being killed was the leading cause of death in the Mandalorian Wars.

[Shem]

I'm sorry Devon, but your argument tactics on that one made me laugh. You totally dismissed many of my biggest points of why I have an issue with this and you threw some speculation on your part. You should be a politician. It would probably be better if we had a discussion about this on Skype sometime.

 

Here's another issue I had, but forgot to put in. Kreia could have used the knowledge of being the Handmaiden's mother to her advantage to manipulate Brianna into doing things for her will; making Brianna Kreia's pawn. It would have revealed this plot point and it would have been in character with Kreia.

 

Here are a couple of opportunities that would have been a good time to drop the bomb:

 

It's like I said, I'm not looking to change people's minds here. I'm just showing you my issues with this theory. I know I'm not going to change people's minds that have it set to this theory.

[Non-false Jedi]

Personally, I think too little in the game was made of the idea for the possibility to be true. Hardly conclusive I know, but still. She's dead so not much will come of it in the future and it would be a fairly major plot point.

[Emperor Devon]

You totally dismissed many of my biggest points

 

And you completely ignored all of my points. As I took the time to respond to all of yours, that's not very fair of you to criticize me for doing. (It's not very helpful either, as you don't even mention which of your points I dismissed.)

 

Kreia could have used the knowledge of being the Handmaiden's mother to her advantage to manipulate Brianna into doing things for her will; making Brianna Kreia's pawn.

 

How? "Do as I say, or I'll tell you I'm your mom? Oh, wait, whoops."

 

Here are a couple of opportunities that would have been a good time to drop the bomb {videos}

 

And Kreia would have stood to gain what from revealing her identity there?

 

I'm sorry Devon, but your argument tactics on that one made me laugh.

 

Pot? Kettle? Black?