Ethics of Brainwashing Revan

[The Sith'ari]

But then, all these arguments are based on the assumption that reprogramming a new identity is an immoral act. Revan's mind was already badly damaged on the bridge. I don't know what exactly that means, but it surely wasn't as if the Jedi Council deliberately destroyed Revan's mind and replaced a new identity. What could the Jedi Council have done? Do nothing and let him die, or save his mind and the Sith Lord rises again, or save his mind and replace some of his memories? At least they didn't just let him die, and it wasn't like he was turned into a vegetable or abandoned to make his own living in the galaxy. His potential abilities weren't even lost; he was just replaced with some new memories (which aren't even some gruesome memories, like "I'm a Hutt who lives in Tatooine") and to start a new life.

 

A chance of redemption, I'd say. If Revan still believes in what he was, he'll naturally go back to his old way and kill Malak to reclaim the mantle of dark lord. But now at least he's given a chance to rethink and repent. Even Malak in the end seemed to envy Revan for the chance of redemption.

 

Well now you may argue what Revan does afterwards is irrelevant, that the act itself is still immoral. Yes, the act itself may be immoral, but life is never so simple, and life is never so perfect. There're always some kind of contraints or another to limit one's choice of action. The jedi council did what they had to do, and they did the best job they knew how to do. That was the best choice, unless you can suggest a better choice than that? Perhaps let him die? It's just a matter of perspective. If I were Revan, I'd hope to start a new life instead of just disappearing into dust and nothing.

[Jediphile]

But then, all these arguments are based on the assumption that reprogramming a new identity is an immoral act. Revan's mind was already badly damaged on the bridge. I don't know what exactly that means, but it surely wasn't as if the Jedi Council deliberately destroyed Revan's mind and replaced a new identity. What could the Jedi Council have done? Do nothing and let him die, or save his mind and the Sith Lord rises again, or save his mind and replace some of his memories? At least they didn't just let him die, and it wasn't like he was turned into a vegetable or abandoned to make his own living in the galaxy. His potential abilities weren't even lost; he was just replaced with some new memories (which aren't even some gruesome memories, like "I'm a Hutt who lives in Tatooine") and to start a new life.

 

A chance of redemption, I'd say. If Revan still believes in what he was, he'll naturally go back to his old way and kill Malak to reclaim the mantle of dark lord. But now at least he's given a chance to rethink and repent. Even Malak in the end seemed to envy Revan for the chance of redemption.

 

Except this is not the council's achievement or even intent. They clearly didn't trust Revan to know who he was, and even if you play Revan to LS mastery by the time you reach Dantooine, they still don't tell him the truth. If Revan was redeemed, then it was his achievement and certainly not the council's. They only saw him as a pawn to be played in their game of strategy against Malak, and that's exactly how they used Revan too.

 

Bluntly put, they didn't merely restore him. No, they rewrote him. They took away his personality and replaced it with one more "suitable" to their own plans. I cannot think of more invasive and disrespectful. It is the psychological equivalent of rape IMHO. If you've seen Star Trek: The Next Generation, please explain to me how the council's action is any better or even different to what the Borg did to Captain Picard?

 

Well now you may argue what Revan does afterwards is irrelevant, that the act itself is still immoral. Yes, the act itself may be immoral, but life is never so simple, and life is never so perfect. There're always some kind of contraints or another to limit one's choice of action. The jedi council did what they had to do, and they did the best job they knew how to do. That was the best choice, unless you can suggest a better choice than that? Perhaps let him die? It's just a matter of perspective. If I were Revan, I'd hope to start a new life instead of just disappearing into dust and nothing.

 

It's not as if they didn't have the choice of letting Revan return to his original mindset. I'll admit that there could have been danger in that, but it was a possibility. But what really rubs me the wrong way is that they don't trust him with the truth even after he has proven himself and helped Bastila escape from Taris. The end effect of that is that they didn't even trust the new personality they forcibly rewrote Revan with, which naturally gives Revan absolutely no reason for showing faith or trust in the jedi masters once he does find out the truth. There's danger in that too, because the logical reaction is anger and desire for revenge. Simply put, the masters trusted neither in Revan, nor the force, nor in their own reprogramming of him.

[Allronix]

Exactly. Not much difference in what the Borg did to Picard or the other Federation did to Blake, or what the Consortium did to Scully and Mulder (at different times). The Borg, Servalan, and Cigarette Smoker will all say they did it for good reasons. The Borg, to achieve perfection. Servalan, to prevent a dangerous and half-insane rebel from killing billions (Blake and crew were going to do that - see "Star One"). The Cigarette Smoker would insist that those two FBI agents had to be silenced in order to save humanity.

 

4000 years and change later, Obi-Wan tells a mountain of half-truths to Luke, playing to a boy's idealized version of his father, pretty much shaping him as a weapon against the Sith. Again, one house of cards meets a wrecking ball. One has to wonder if Luke's tendency to adopt the pre-Exar Kun style of Jedi came from some of that. That, and when it came down to it, he would choose the Light first, his companions second, and the trappings of Jedi last - see ESB and ROTJ.

 

I may play Lightside Female, but I think the Jedi can space themselves. Honestly, Carth, Mission, Zaalbar, Juhani, and Jolee were my reasons for turning down Bastila's offer. I wanted to not let THEM down - a testament to how well they were made. I found myself saying "Nah, I'm not gonna do that in front of the kid", "Juhani thinks so highly of me, I dont want to let her down", "Jolee's got a point," "Zaalbar swore that lifedebt because he thought I was noble enough to earn it" and "Carth's had enough knives in his back. Not adding to them."

 

It was the very thing the Jedi fear - and I will bloody well use the word - that has me walking away from Revan's legacy. I play Dark Side, and I get almost physically sick turning on my party.

[The Sith'ari]

Except this is not the council's achievement or even intent. They clearly didn't trust Revan to know who he was, and even if you play Revan to LS mastery by the time you reach Dantooine, they still don't tell him the truth. If Revan was redeemed, then it was his achievement and certainly not the council's. They only saw him as a pawn to be played in their game of strategy against Malak, and that's exactly how they used Revan too.

 

So you're talking about the intention.

 

Yes, the JC's intention was not to give Revan a chance of redemption. But you can't deny that Revan was indeed given a chance to be redeemed.

 

And yes, the JC reprogrammed Revan, turned him to their cause. But to what degree? All they did was to erase his dangerous memories, then afterwards Revan is on his own. What Revan does afterwards is indeed out of the JC's control. Did the JC manipulated Revan in some way so that he saved Bastila? I don't think so. Like I said, if Revan still believes in his old ways, he'll still be who he wants to be and even the JC has no say, as in the case of a DS Revan. All I wanna point out is, the JC did not reprogram Revan to be a pawn or slave of the JC; they just replaced his dangerous memories with neutral ones, those of a normal, ordinary citizen. Revan still has his freedom; the path he takes is still his own.

 

Bluntly put, they didn't merely restore him. No, they rewrote him. They took away his personality and replaced it with one more "suitable" to their own plans. I cannot think of more invasive and disrespectful. It is the psychological equivalent of rape IMHO. If you've seen Star Trek: The Next Generation, please explain to me how the council's action is any better or even different to what the Borg did to Captain Picard?

 

Like I said before, yes they replaced Revan's mind, but i'd say they only "neutralised" it, instead of putting it in apparent favour of their plans. And I doubt they took away his personality. I ain't a mind psychologist, but seeing that Revan actually managed to recover old memories, I'd opt to believe it's not the entire mind they replaced but just some of the more dangerous memories that have effects on his alignment, like the memory of being a dark lord.

 

I have not seen Star Trek, so I can't compare. But I know what you mean.

 

It's not as if they didn't have the choice of letting Revan return to his original mindset. I'll admit that there could have been danger in that, but it was a possibility.

 

Of course they had this choice, but do you really think it's possible were you in the JC's shoes? First and foremost you'd be thinking for your own life- the dark lord could kill you all when he woke!

 

But what really rubs me the wrong way is that they don't trust him with the truth even after he has proven himself and helped Bastila escape from Taris. The end effect of that is that they didn't even trust the new personality they forcibly rewrote Revan with, which naturally gives Revan absolutely no reason for showing faith or trust in the jedi masters once he does find out the truth. There's danger in that too, because the logical reaction is anger and desire for revenge. Simply put, the masters trusted neither in Revan, nor the force, nor in their own reprogramming of him.

 

I agree. But the fact that they don't even trust him proves one thing: the JC did not totally rewrite Revan's mind, nor did they change his very personality. They're aware he's still Revan, that his memories of a dark lord could all flush back once he's aware of his past, and they don't wanna risk. This just underscores what I suggested previously.

 

Provided that his mind was not totally rewritten to be a pawn of the JC, I don't see why the fact that the JC did not trust him would make the brainwashing of Revan inethical. It's natural not to trust him, because he's still Revan deep beneath.

 

Anyhow, I know what you feel and how you're rubbed the wrong way. But IMO, the JC did the best they could.

[Jediphile]

Exactly. Not much difference in what the Borg did to Picard or the other Federation did to Blake, or what the Consortium did to Scully and Mulder (at different times). The Borg, Servalan, and Cigarette Smoker will all say they did it for good reasons. The Borg, to achieve perfection. Servalan, to prevent a dangerous and half-insane rebel from killing billions (Blake and crew were going to do that - see "Star One"). The Cigarette Smoker would insist that those two FBI agents had to be silenced in order to save humanity.

 

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Like Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's Captain Sisko says in "In the Pale Moonlight", "My intentions were good. In the beginnig that seemed like enough." But, of course, we all know what the road to Hell is paved with. The jedi council, however, seems not to.

 

And it's good to see someone else who knows the adventures of Blake, The Liberator, and - my personal favorite - Avon. I don't get the impression there are too many of us around...

 

I may play Lightside Female, but I think the Jedi can space themselves. Honestly, Carth, Mission, Zaalbar, Juhani, and Jolee were my reasons for turning down Bastila's offer. I wanted to not let THEM down - a testament to how well they were made. I found myself saying "Nah, I'm not gonna do that in front of the kid", "Juhani thinks so highly of me, I dont want to let her down", "Jolee's got a point," "Zaalbar swore that lifedebt because he thought I was noble enough to earn it" and "Carth's had enough knives in his back. Not adding to them."

 

True. But then I've always felt that Jolee embodied the essence of the jedi far better than the council did in K1. It's like the council is merely the trappings and the rules of the jedi, but Jolee represents the very soul of the jedi, which the masters have forgotten. Well, maybe not Vandar... though he still went along with it.

 

It was the very thing the Jedi fear - and I will bloody well use the word - that has me walking away from Revan's legacy. I play Dark Side, and I get almost physically sick turning on my party.

 

Agreed. Murdering Mission or, even worse, getting Zaalbar to murder her is just so ghastly to behold that Anakin's fall still looks like a kid's movie to me. And we didn't even see any blood in the game.

 

Yes, the JC's intention was not to give Revan a chance of redemption. But you can't deny that Revan was indeed given a chance to be redeemed.

 

That depends entirely on your perspective. The council had the choice of letting him live or die. But since jedi don't kill their prisoners, they cannot really take the second choice without violating their own rules. And how they chose to go with the first option doesn't really suggest much compassion on their part IMHO.

 

And yes, the JC reprogrammed Revan, turned him to their cause. But to what degree? All they did was to erase his dangerous memories, then afterwards Revan is on his own.

 

Ah, but did they? I think not. After all, they COULD have erased Revan's memory entirely. They didn't do that, because that would have robbed them of access to Revan's memories, which they needed in their struggle against Malak. It is precisely the most dangerous memories - those leading to the Star Forge and its corruptive nature, which they already speculate on, I might add - that they are interested in, since that will lead them to the source of Revan's power... now Malak's. That Revan lived, was redeemed, or even treated in any compassionate way are all clearly of very low priority. And according to the german philosopher, Immanuel Kant, you should always treat a human being as a goal onto itself and never as a means for another purpose. Yet that is precisely what the council did. They took away Revan's free will and made him into a personality more suitable to their own needs, so they could better control and extract information from him. He is simply a means to an end for them. I shudder to think what they would have done with him, had he led them to that information without realising the truth and still ended up in their custody.

 

What Revan does afterwards is indeed out of the JC's control. Did the JC manipulated Revan in some way so that he saved Bastila? I don't think so. Like I said, if Revan still believes in his old ways, he'll still be who he wants to be and even the JC has no say, as in the case of a DS Revan.

 

You also have to acknowledge that at this point the council really had no other choice. Certainly they did not let him fly off with Bastila because they liked that idea. Vrook hated it, and Vandar and Dorak didn't seem too certain about it either. But at this point, they had no other choice but to follow his memories to wherever it led them. And note that they send Bastila along primarily because she shares Revan's emerging memories, meaning that they still don't trust Revan in any way. But they had already made the choice and had to stick with it - in for a penny, in for a pound. And the only reason they didn't send any masters with Revan and Bastila was because it would only have attracted Malak's attention.

 

All I wanna point out is, the JC did not reprogram Revan to be a pawn or slave of the JC; they just replaced his dangerous memories with neutral ones, those of a normal, ordinary citizen. Revan still has his freedom; the path he takes is still his own.

 

I disagree. That's precisely what they did. If it didn't work and Revan still had free choice, then that is Revan's achievement, Revan's will exerting itself. It certainly is not because the council, in their benevolence, have decided to allow Revan free will IMHO.

 

Of course they had this choice, but do you really think it's possible were you in the JC's shoes? First and foremost you'd be thinking for your own life- the dark lord could kill you all when he woke!

 

As powerful as Revan was, I really don't think he could take on the entire jedi council, let alone an entire academy/enclave full of jedi. So I can't agree that the danger is that great. It's actually more dangerous what they really do. They allow Revan to be revived, but he has no memories and and has to relearn all his abilities. But once he begins regaining his abilities and recollecting his lost memories, THEN they send him away on a mission...

[stoffe]

Ah, but if those acts are evil, does that make it justifiable to do the sort of thing that the council did?

 

I did not say those acts were unquestionably evil. I said it would depend on who you ask if they were evil or not, since there is no such thing as an universal objective evil. Things subjectively considered evil collectively by a large number (or majority) of people is the closest you'd come to that.

 

The Star Wars galaxy as I see it portrayed is making absolute definitions of good and evil even more complex than it is here in reality, since there are so many different sentient species, so many radically different cultures with vastly different history, norms and values. Do the Hutts consider themselves an evil and unethical species devoid of morals? I doubt it. What is generally considered ethical would depend on which culture/people you ask.

 

Furthermore, the Jedi are the sworn protectors of the Republic, not the self-proclaimed guardians of morals and ethics in the galaxy. While they are generally considered the good guys it would be a violation of their sworn oaths not to expend every option available to them not in direct violation of their own Code to defend the Republic from a dire threat if their preferred methods are ineffective.

 

Is it okay only because they did it to Revan or would it be okay to do to anyone? Because if the moral defense that is that it was necessary under the circumstances, then it really shouldn't matter whether Revan or anyone else was the target, should it?

 

It only matters who in the sense that this punishment was the most practical and potentially beneficial one to give Revan. It was a punishment that could turn the tide and potentially undo some of the damage which she was punished for causing. If they had captured someone else who held the same knowledge and ability as Revan did the same punishment would make sense to use there too.

 

The Jedi are tasked with law enforcement concerning force users, and they couldn't just let Revan walk out unpunished after all she had done to the Republic and Jedi Order. There had to be consequences and justice had to be done. As I posted above most of the options they had at their disposal would be futile gestures though. And so the Jedi Council, who would be the highest authority for meting out justice to wayward force users, chose ironic justice in this case, since they would stand to benefit from it while still seeing justice done.

 

And, of course, it also begs the question of what what exactly makes the Republic and the jedi order worth preserving, if you're willing to sacrifice the higher ideals they were based on to save the mere existence of these institutions themselves.

 

The higher ideals at the time seemed to be little more than that; ideals, with little reflection in reality. The Republic Senate is portrayed as notoriously corrupt where senators look out for themselves first, their planet(s) a distant second and the good of the Republic last. The Jedi Council is portrayed as a lofty, decadent, self-satisfied group so convinced of their own supreme wisdom and vision that they couldn't even entertain the notion that they may be wrong or fail to see the big picture. Organized crime and corruption runs rampant to the point where organizations like the Exchange are the de-facto rulers of entire planets.

 

It wouldn't be a matter of upholding lofty ideals as much as it would be to revive and bring them back.

 

 

But here's the real dilemma: Revan did so many horrible and unspeakable acts, right? Sure he did. Was the order justified in using and manipulating him for that reason? Is so, then why? Because Revan was evil and deserved this punishment?

 

From the Republic and Jedi perspective Revan perpetrated horrible acts directly in conflict with their own interests. She chose to embody the philosophy of their mortal enemy and shape her empire in their image.

 

The Jedi are responsible for maintaining law and order where force users are concerned. Revan was a force user who was beyond any doubt guilty of high treason against the Republic, and for breaking her oaths to the Jedi Order. It was the responsibility of the Council to ensure justice was brought upon her for these crimes. The punishment for these severe crimes had to be equally severe. The council chose the punishment that could potentially bring some good and not just satisfy everyones desire for revenge, or set a deterring example for others.

 

 

And consider this: Even if Revan was evil and deserved it, that still doesn't justify anything. Why? Because it turns out that Revan was also doing what he did for a higher goal - to save the Republic from the true Sith. If you argue that Revan deserved it for his evil acts and that this therefore washes the jedi free of any blame, then isn't Revan also absolved for his dark acts on the basis that he did it all to save the Republic?

 

That might be true if there was a higher, universal standard of viewpoint from which matters would be judged. In this case there was not: the Council had to judge Revan's actions from the perspective of the Order and the Republic. From this perspective Revan had broken oaths and committed High Treason. She had launched a military campaign against the Republic, killing their soldiers and conquering member planets. From the perspective of the Republic the "why" of it was irrelevant.

 

No, either way, the jedi are hypocritical and arrogant in the extreme. They're just plain wrong, because their own actions really are no better than Revan's.

 

From our all-knowing god's eye view as players and readers of the story I certainly agree. However the Republic and the Jedi Council did not know all we do, and they viewed what transpired from a different angle, namely that of a government under attack by a traitor seeking their deaths. Thus they would feel entirely justified in dealing with said traitor in the way they considered to be the one bringing the least harm to everyone involved (aside from Malak's sith). Revan wasn't put to death for her crimes, nor was she locked up and the key thrown away. She was given a chance (though not choice) of putting things "right" (as the Jedi see it). We may see their choice of punishment as unethical; violating the sanctity of another sentient's mind, but they likely saw it as the lesser of evils.

 

In particular with such emotional council members as Vrook and Atris it's easy to see how they could justify to themselves doing such an act.

[Jediphile]

I did not say those acts were unquestionably evil. I said it would depend on who you ask if they were evil or not, since there is no such thing as an universal objective evil. Things subjectively considered evil collectively by a large number (or majority) of people is the closest you'd come to that.

 

The Star Wars galaxy as I see it portrayed is making absolute definitions of good and evil even more complex than it is here in reality, since there are so many different sentient species, so many radically different cultures with vastly different history, norms and values. Do the Hutts consider themselves an evil and unethical species devoid of morals? I doubt it. What is generally considered ethical would depend on which culture/people you ask.

 

I'm not sure if we want to open the can of worms of whether or not there is universally objective evil or not. Because if we say there is not, then there is no basis for EVER saying that something is truly good or evil - then there are only degrees of gray, and the ethical implications of any act becomes a subjective evaluation, and so there can be no good or evil. And in that case, you can never truly that someone or something is evil, because it really just comes down to personal opinion, in which case you lock up people only because their concepts of acceptable behaviour is so different to that of public opinion that you need to protect the general population from them. But then you cannot imprison them on a moral basis, because there really isn't one - it all comes down to personal opinion and preferences, and no opinion is ever really better or worse than anyone else's. That's not to be confused with fact, though - that icecream tastes good or bad is an opinion, but that two plus two equals four is a fact. What is wrong then? Most of us agree that murder is wrong, but if there is no objective evil, then you really can lock away people for murder only because their actions are disruptive to society, not because their actions are unethical. Or how about cannibalism? Most of us find it horrible, but it is actually accepted in some cultures. Basically we'd be suggesting that murder is only considered wrong by more people than cannibalism is, which in turn is worse than assault, theft, tax evation, and so forth, where the only difference is where each of us choose to draw the line.

 

No, of course the Hutts don't see themselves as evil, but that doesn't mean that they aren't. Nobody ever thinks of himself as evil, not even in Star Wars. Even Lucas knows this, and he has said it in interviews on "60 Minutes", too. Palpatine believes he's bringing order to a chaotic galaxy and punishing the jedi for their arrogant ways. Anakin does it to save Padmé and bring order. Take Hitler, Napoleon, Stalin, or any other historical figure - none of them will call themselves evil. The only example I can remember, where a character knows he's evil is Shakespeare's "Richard III".

 

Furthermore, the Jedi are the sworn protectors of the Republic, not the self-proclaimed guardians of morals and ethics in the galaxy. While they are generally considered the good guys it would be a violation of their sworn oaths not to expend every option available to them not in direct violation of their own Code to defend the Republic from a dire threat if their preferred methods are ineffective.

 

"The Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic"

 

"There is no emotion; there is peace.

There is no ignorance; there is knowledge.

There is no passion; there is serenity.

There is no death; there is the Force."

 

That doesn't exactly sound like some para-military peace-keeping force to me.

 

It only matters who in the sense that this punishment was the most practical and potentially beneficial one to give Revan. It was a punishment that could turn the tide and potentially undo some of the damage which she was punished for causing. If they had captured someone else who held the same knowledge and ability as Revan did the same punishment would make sense to use there too.

 

But if there is no universal evil, then there is no basis for punishing Revan, since he only followed his own opinion of what right or wrong is. In that case, he may have to be imprisoned for the good of society, so that he doesn't harm people, but there would be no moral context for condemning his actions. If you did that, you would basically be punishing him for disagreeing with your own opinion of what good and evil should be, which would be equivalent to oppression by the rule of majority - like if we decided tomorrow that it was immoral to have red hair or liking teletubbies or whatever would not apply to majority of us.

 

And if you look merely at the practicallity of the matter, then what if the jedi order captured one of Revan's officers with lots of knowledge about the Star Forge that he refuses to share. However, this person has not actually committed any crimes. He has not ordered the deaths of innocents, since he has never reached a position that would give him the authority to do so. But even so, the jedi would still do what they did to Revan simply because the situation demands it. Right?

 

The Jedi are tasked with law enforcement concerning force users, and they couldn't just let Revan walk out unpunished after all she had done to the Republic and Jedi Order. There had to be consequences and justice had to be done. As I posted above most of the options they had at their disposal would be futile gestures though. And so the Jedi Council, who would be the highest authority for meting out justice to wayward force users, chose ironic justice in this case, since they would stand to benefit from it while still seeing justice done.

 

And as I've just said, there is no basis for punishment in a system without good or evil. And you're forgetting that Revan also has a moral context to justify his own actions with - he's doing it all to save the Republic from the true Sith.

 

As for the relevance of the punishment, I would say that if you consider the forcible brainwashing and reprogramming of a person's personality to be acceptable under certain circumstances, would you also consider rape to be acceptable under some circumstances? Because they both seem rather invasive to me. In fact, I find Revan's punishment to be the harsher one. Of course, it's difficult to evaluate, since that option doesn't really exist in real life, but when I consider it, I'd have to say that Revan's punishment seems worse.

 

The Jedi are responsible for maintaining law and order where force users are concerned. Revan was a force user who was beyond any doubt guilty of high treason against the Republic, and for breaking her oaths to the Jedi Order.

 

This I don't see. Revan left the Republic and returned as an enemy. Clearly he had left the jedi order. For genuine betrayal, you have to abuse your position in society and betray the faith the state has put in you. That's not what Revan did. No, he left. He was gone for a year. And when he returned, he made no secrets of his new allegiance. He abandoned the Republic and left the order. That's not really betrayal. That would be like saying that I betray my country if I say out loud that I'm disgusted by the choices and actions of the administration and then leave for some country I feel better about, perhaps even one not friendly to my old country. That's not a betrayal, merely a hard choice. Betrayal takes abuse of trust.

 

From our all-knowing god's eye view as players and readers of the story I certainly agree. However the Republic and the Jedi Council did not know all we do, and they viewed what transpired from a different angle, namely that of a government under attack by a traitor seeking their deaths.

 

I do not agree Revan was a traitor, but even if I did, even traitors have rights.

 

Thus they would feel entirely justified in dealing with said traitor in the way they considered to be the one bringing the least harm to everyone involved (aside from Malak's sith). Revan wasn't put to death for her crimes, nor was she locked up and the key thrown away. She was given a chance (though not choice) of putting things "right" (as the Jedi see it). We may see their choice of punishment as unethical; violating the sanctity of another sentient's mind, but they likely saw it as the lesser of evils.

 

Compared to what other evil? Killing Revan? I don't see any other "higher" evil. The council simply manipulated and exploited Revan to the maximum effect. There is nothing "lesser" about that.

[stoffe]

I'm not sure if we want to open the can of worms of whether or not there is universally objective evil or not. Because if we say there is not, then there is no basis for EVER saying that something is truly good or evil - then there are only degrees of gray, and the ethical implications of any act becomes a subjective evaluation, and so there can be no good or evil.

 

Sure there can be. There are plenty of opinions about what is good and evil. Just not one "one size fits all" template for what is universally good and evil. A common definition: Someone who opposes you, uses methods you find reprehensible, causes you pain or loss or puts you in danger is evil. Someone who helps you, furthers your goals or improves your lot is good.

 

 

"The Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic"

 

"There is no emotion; there is peace.

There is no ignorance; there is knowledge.

There is no passion; there is serenity.

There is no death; there is the Force."

 

That doesn't exactly sound like some para-military peace-keeping force to me.

 

Well, from what has been depicted in the movies and games there is plenty of emotion where Jedi are involved, the council repeatedly display ignorance and make uninformed decisions, as do jedi "in the field". There are repeated displays of passion (both the romantic and non-romantic kind) where Jedi are involved. The Code is ideals to strive towards and believe in, not a factual description of how the actual individual Jedi are. I sense a Code vs. Reality mismatch.

 

And curiously missing are something along the lines of "There is no darkness, there is light", "There is no evil, there is good" or "There is no pragmatism, there are morals" or however someone more skilled in the English language and philosophy than me would formulate it.

 

Regardless of the higher ideals of the Jedi Order they are tasked with peace-keeping and protection of the Republic. They give members weapons training from the day they are old enough to hold a weapon.

 

 

But if there is no universal evil, then there is no basis for punishing Revan, since he only followed his own opinion of what right or wrong is.

 

You do not punish someone because they are evil, but because they have broken the law. Revan broke the laws of the Republic and the Jedi, and thus had to be punished.

 

 

And as I've just said, there is no basis for punishment in a system without good or evil. And you're forgetting that Revan also has a moral context to justify his own actions with - he's doing it all to save the Republic from the true Sith.

 

If you break into a prison and kill all the inmates who have been convicted of murder, have you not committed murder yourself even if you did it solely to prevent them from harming any more innocent people when they are let out? If you do something illegal it's still illegal even if you did it with good intentions.

 

And I'm pretty sure the Republic doesn't particularly feel like it is being saved when their soldiers are slaughtered, its worlds conquered and its elected leaders executed or exiled. Again it's a matter of perspective. From Revan's perspective she was saving the people of the Republic from their own shortsightedness. From the Republic's perspective she was an evil aggressor who caused much suffering, death and losses, threatening the stability and indeed the survival of this ancient institution of galactic unity. To them Revan was one of their most celebrated heroes who had betrayed them for no (to them) apparent reason.

 

 

As for the relevance of the punishment, I would say that if you consider the forcible brainwashing and reprogramming of a person's personality to be acceptable under certain circumstances, would you also consider rape to be acceptable under some circumstances?

 

Would you consider killing someone as punishment for their crime to be acceptable? I'd say that's one step worse since it's definitely final. And that doesn't really bring anything good other than satisfying the victims' desire for revenge, and set an example for others that "if you do this then we'll kill you".

 

Brainwashing and personality suppression is more or less equal to the death penalty, in that you essentially "execute" the old personality, and implant a new one that can (unknowingly) atone for the crimes the person has committed. I agree it's an atrocity, but not more so than executing the person would be.

 

This I don't see. Revan left the Republic and returned as an enemy. Clearly he had left the jedi order. For genuine betrayal, you have to abuse your position in society and betray the faith the state has put in you. That's not what Revan did.

 

Revan left without a word, not retiring from the Republic military or relinquishing control of the forces assigned to her. She brought 1/3 of the Republic fleet with her when she left and cut contact so they couldn't be ordered back by their superiors. She embezzled this significant chunk of the Republic military, converted it to her own purposes and used it to attack the Republic. If this does not constitute high treason they I don't know of anything that will.

 

Revan left the Jedi Order without a word, brought those surviving Jedi who had followed her to war against the Maldalorians with her, turned them to the Dark Side, embraced the philosophy of the mortal enemy of the Jedi Order and assumed the title of their leader, returned and either killed any Jedi they found or captured them and turned them to the dark side. You do not consider that to be breaking her oaths to the Jedi Order?

 

I do not agree Revan was a traitor, but even if I did, even traitors have rights.

 

And the penalty for high treason is usually death in any country that still has the death penalty, otherwise it tends to be life imprisonment. I'd imagine things work in a fairly similar way in the Republic, though of course that's pure speculation.

 

The Jedi Council picked an alternate form of death, rather than just pull the plug and let Revan die from her injuries sustained from Malak's sneak attack (or lop her head off with a lightsaber), and try to impotently stop the onslaught of the Sith blind to the big picture as Malak tore the Republic to pieces.

[tk102]

Just my observation on this thread...

 

Good and evil are loaded words. This discussion might fare better sticking to the use of the terms moral and immoral. And for anyone who seeks to figure out the objectivity of morality, I was convinced of it in this thread.

[Jediphile]

Sure there can be. There are plenty of opinions about what is good and evil. Just not one "one size fits all" template for what is universally good and evil. A common definition: Someone who opposes you, uses methods you find reprehensible, causes you pain or loss or puts you in danger is evil. Someone who helps you, furthers your goals or improves your lot is good.

 

It's not quite that easy, unfortunately. For example, your first definition can be applied to someone who harms me accident in some way. Someone who hit me or a family member with their car in an accident would fall into that definition. I would not call such a person evil. And in the second definition, the person in question could be someone who simply has an agenda that happens to coincide with mine. I would not call such a person "good" in the moral sense. By that definition, Palpatine could be called "good" in Episode I.

 

Well, from what has been depicted in the movies and games there is plenty of emotion where Jedi are involved, the council repeatedly display ignorance and make uninformed decisions, as do jedi "in the field". There are repeated displays of passion (both the romantic and non-romantic kind) where Jedi are involved. The Code is ideals to strive towards and believe in, not a factual description of how the actual individual Jedi are. I sense a Code vs. Reality mismatch.

 

I agree, but then that is precisely the point of K1 and particularly K2 - the masters have erred greatly in their own pursuit of the code, even as they impose it on others.

 

Regardless of the higher ideals of the Jedi Order they are tasked with peace-keeping and protection of the Republic. They give members weapons training from the day they are old enough to hold a weapon.

 

They do, but it's not as if they're all soldier or police officers. For example, Kreia and Atris are both librarians and four of the five masters in the KotOR comic book are all seers. Even in TSL, the general population you meet do not associate the Jedi Order with "police force" as much as "religious order". So clearly the order's law-enforcing duties are not considered their primary responsibility.

 

You do not punish someone because they are evil, but because they have broken the law. Revan broke the laws of the Republic and the Jedi, and thus had to be punished.

 

Ah, and the Republic has a law that as "mind-invasive personality reprogramming" as a legal punishment? I wonder if they also have "state-enforced rape" as a legal punishment then. Because that is the closest relevant punishment I can think of.

 

If you break into a prison and kill all the inmates who have been convicted of murder, have you not committed murder yourself even if you did it solely to prevent them from harming any more innocent people when they are let out? If you do something illegal it's still illegal even if you did it with good intentions.

 

Yes, I would, but that's just my point - the jedi order did something nasty and immoral themselves in their pursuit for some greater good. I'm not defending Revan's actions, because some of them are truly horrendous. The problem doesn't lie there. The problem lies with the council assuming the moral authority to judge Revan, despite doing similarly questionable acts themselves. That suggests that their only position of authority in the matter comes from a "might is right"-principle, which does not have much to do with fairness and justice.

 

And I'm pretty sure the Republic doesn't particularly feel like it is being saved when their soldiers are slaughtered, its worlds conquered and its elected leaders executed or exiled. Again it's a matter of perspective. From Revan's perspective she was saving the people of the Republic from their own shortsightedness. From the Republic's perspective she was an evil aggressor who caused much suffering, death and losses, threatening the stability and indeed the survival of this ancient institution of galactic unity. To them Revan was one of their most celebrated heroes who had betrayed them for no (to them) apparent reason.

 

So it may have seemed, but clearly there are extenuating circumstances that need to be considered. Did anyone take the time to do so? If they had, would Revan's punishment have been reduced? In both cases I would say no, because I don't get the impression that the Republic is even aware that the council had captured Revan. Carth has some authority and respect in the Republic fleet and on the Endar Spire, yet clearly he is not aware of it. It seems more likely to me that the council just captured Revan and then used him for entirely practical and pragmatic purposes. And if they are excused for what they did on the basis of the greater good, then isn't Revan?

 

Would you consider killing someone as punishment for their crime to be acceptable? I'd say that's one step worse since it's definitely final. And that doesn't really bring anything good other than satisfying the victims' desire for revenge, and set an example for others that "if you do this then we'll kill you".

 

If I had to choose between the death penalty and being used as a tool against all that I believe in and have fought for, then I would consider the former the more desirable punishment.

 

Brainwashing and personality suppression is more or less equal to the death penalty, in that you essentially "execute" the old personality, and implant a new one that can (unknowingly) atone for the crimes the person has committed. I agree it's an atrocity, but not more so than executing the person would be.

 

I disagree. With a death penalty, you're at least allowed to hold onto your ideals for posterity. Being used to betray those ideals and those allies who may still believe in you is a far worse punishment. Indeed, real world history is full of idealists who chose death over submission to an enemy.

 

Revan left without a word, not retiring from the Republic military or relinquishing control of the forces assigned to her. She brought 1/3 of the Republic fleet with her when she left and cut contact so they couldn't be ordered back by their superiors. She embezzled this significant chunk of the Republic military, converted it to her own purposes and used it to attack the Republic. If this does not constitute high treason they I don't know of anything that will.

 

You also need to acknowledge that the Republic gave Revan that fleet to control against the better judgment of the jedi order. From the above, you almost get the impression that Revan suddenly turned against both the Republic and the Jedi Order, but at that point the order had already cast Revan and the others out, so there is no way we can claim an betrayal of allegiance to the order - once someone tosses you out, they cannot claim that your later actions are betrayal against them. If Revan is cast out of the order, of course Revan will no longer consider the jedi code or the wishes of the order to have any relevance.

 

You also neglect to consider the disagreements between the Republic and the jedi order on this matter. It's not as if they were one unity agreed in all matter in this case. This is clear even in K1, if you pay attention to some of the discussions between Bastila and Carth. The Jedi Order clearly did not want Revan and Malak to lead this fleet. The Republic ignored them and gave it to Revan and Malak anyway. The Jedi Order warned the war-seeking jedi that they would be thrown out of the order, because it would lead them to the dark side. That's a pretty clear signal to the Republic that those jedi might turn against them.

 

So either the Republic was completely ignorant or else they considered that risk acceptable in light of the dire straights the Republic was in during the Mandalorian Wars. Either way, they have to live with the consequences. They cannot cry foul later, since the council did give them fair warning of what might happen. And guess what, the council turned out to be right. But as Carth says, it really doesn't matter, since the alternative would have been that the Republic would have fallen to the Mandalorians.

 

Revan left the Jedi Order without a word, brought those surviving Jedi who had followed her to war against the Maldalorians with her, turned them to the Dark Side, embraced the philosophy of the mortal enemy of the Jedi Order and assumed the title of their leader, returned and either killed any Jedi they found or captured them and turned them to the dark side. You do not consider that to be breaking her oaths to the Jedi Order?

 

No, because the order threw him out the second he chose to go to war. If I'm fired from my job, I'm not going to bother calling the firm later and telling them that I'm no longer loyal to them. It would seem redundant in the extreme, and clearly they could not expect me to be in any event, having already turned their backs on me.

 

And the penalty for high treason is usually death in any country that still has the death penalty, otherwise it tends to be life imprisonment. I'd imagine things work in a fairly similar way in the Republic, though of course that's pure speculation.

 

Except the Republic didn't punish Revan. The council did, which means that they actually punished Revan for the same crime twice - when he went to war, they cast him out as a someone having fallen to the dark side. When they then captured him, they just decided to punish him even more. You cannot punish someone for the same offense twice. That is a very firm legal principle in most legal systems.

 

The Jedi Council picked an alternate form of death, rather than just pull the plug and let Revan die from her injuries sustained from Malak's sneak attack (or lop her head off with a lightsaber), and try to impotently stop the onslaught of the Sith blind to the big picture as Malak tore the Republic to pieces.

 

The jedi council does not have the authority to punish Revan for crimes he committed against the Republic. Only the Republic has that authority. And the jedi council had already punished Revan by throwing him out of the order. That the council chose to hide the entire thing from the Republic speaks volumes, I think.

[SilentScope001]

I've seen the Moral Relativism thread, and would like to post there, expect I probarly shouldn't, due to me disliking debate fourms. Regardless...

 

I have a feeling that Jediphile and stoffe are embracing two very different ethical theories.

 

Jediphile is embracing theory of Kant and denotology. You treat man as an ends, not as as a mean, and you do something because it is good. Jediphile is stating why the action is wrong.

 

Example:

... according to the german philosopher, Immanuel Kant, you should always treat a human being as a goal onto itself and never as a means for another purpose. Yet that is precisely what the council did. They took away Revan's free will and made him into a personality more suitable to their own needs, so they could better control and extract information from him. He is simply a means to an end for them. I shudder to think what they would have done with him, had he led them to that information without realising the truth and still ended up in their custody.

 

stoffe is embracing ethical relativism, in that she is explaining why the Jedi Council did it rather than why it is wrong. In defending why the Jedi Council believed they did the right action, she uses Act Utilitiranism. This is the belief that you do something that would promote the most good, or utility. If mindwiping Revan would save countless lives, then do it. Jediphile argues that by adopting this sort of logic, that you do something so that something greater can be achieved, then a lot of unethical acts would be done, but really, those acts would not be "unethical". Since the goal of Act Utilitrainism is to promote the most utility, mindwiping Revan is a totally ethical act, as you are promoting the most happiness...you are saving countless lives while giving Revan a chance at redemeption. Of course, the problem of Act Utilitranism is the lack of "justice", as similar cases are treated in different manners because of the different consquences they entitled, but is justice really that interesting?

 

Example:

 

Even if they had destroyed his memory, it still would have been. Saving a galaxy of hundreds of trillions of people is worth just one losing his mind.

 

It's the difference between ""There are no morals, there is pragmatisim" of stoffe and Jediphile's idea of following strict moral laws. This means there can be no agreement on the issue, as both Jediphile and stoffe has different views on what is the correct ethical system to judge ethics. Different warrants. Once you can idenitify the different warrants, then argument is meaningless, as you are attacking warrants, and you cannot win such an argument.

 

Use Kant's system, and the act of brainwashing Revan is wrong. Use AU and the act of brainwashing Revan is the greatest act ever.

 

I personally like AU as that it offers a felxiable framework to allow you what to do. It also allows you to justify whatever you want to do...which some people see as a weakness. I see it as a strength. If you want to do something, you need to prove it, and using AU can help you prove that what you are doing is right. So, I should be okay with brainwashing Revan. However, there might still be a bit of Kant within me that worries about why is Revan giving such a harsh punishment, which promoted me to start the thread.

 

Still, I do like both stoffe and Jediphile's arguments, which allows me to see how the Jedi Council can be both right and wrong.

 

What I want to know is what the DEVELOPERS thought? Are the developers on the side of Jediphile or on stoffe? If we can figure out the intentions of the authors of the KOTOR series, we will be able to solve the problem. Of course, they won't speak, and we will not want them to speak.

[Jediphile]

I personally like AU as that it offers a felxiable framework to allow you what to do. It also allows you to justify whatever you want to do...which some people see as a weakness. I see it as a strength. If you want to do something, you need to prove it, and using AU can help you prove that what you are doing is right.

 

This is at the very heart of the matter to me, because once you embrace this principle, there is no right or wrong, since - as you say - you can always justify whatever you want to. If you can do that, then don't moral and ethical evaluations become meaningless? I cannot go there myself.

[The Architect]

My thoughts? What the Jedi Council did was wrong. Reprogramming Revan’s mind so he/she would be a slave of the Jedi Council, lead them to the Star Forge and uncover his/her former Sith allies plans was immoral.

 

Even though according to them, it was their only hope of winning the war, it was the last scrape of the barrel and it was done with the best of intentions, there is no justification for such an act. Nothing can change the fact that it was an unethical thing to do.

 

Jediphile makes an excellent point about why ‘the act is justified because it serves the higher goal’ argument is wrong.

And, of course, it also begs the question of what what exactly makes the Republic and the jedi order worth preserving, if you're willing to sacrifice the higher ideals they were based on to save the mere existence of these institutions themselves.

 

But here's the real dilemma: Revan did so many horrible and unspeakable acts, right? Sure he did. Was the order justified in using and manipulating him for that reason? Is so, then why? Because Revan was evil and deserved this punishment?

 

Ah, but the morality of an act is not based on how moral or unethical the person or persons you do something towards are - it's based entirely on how ethical your own act is. Whether you torture an innocent or a villain doesn't matter - it's wrong either way, because the act alone says something about who you are and the lengths you're willing to go to.

 

Case closed. I know you've said before that you aren't a lawyer Jediphile, but their are times when you sound like one, a good one at that too.

[The Sith'ari]

Except the Republic didn't punish Revan. The council did, which means that they actually punished Revan for the same crime twice - when he went to war, they cast him out as a someone having fallen to the dark side. When they then captured him, they just decided to punish him even more. You cannot punish someone for the same offense twice. That is a very firm legal principle in most legal systems.

 

No they did not cast him out (yet) for fighting the war. Else, no jedi would have to return for the hearing then. Revan was casted out when he raged war against the republic and later failed to attend the hearing, when he violated the code of the Council- the Council did it with the authority of the organisation that Revan once belonged to. The later brainwashing of Revan was done with the Jedi playing the role of protector and peacekeeper of the galaxy. It's just like, if I commit a crime, I get kicked out of the "Outstanding Student Association" because I violated their code, and also I get sentenced to imprisonment because I violated the law.

 

They do, but it's not as if they're all soldier or police officers. For example, Kreia and Atris are both librarians and four of the five masters in the KotOR comic book are all seers. Even in TSL, the general population you meet do not associate the Jedi Order with "police force" as much as "religious order". So clearly the order's law-enforcing duties are not considered their primary responsibility.

 

This is not so. The precense of other roles does not mean the Jedi's law-enforcing duties are not primary. Even as Revan we got to be the arbiter of a crime scene in Dantooine, while many jedi are sent to complete missions of such nature in numerous worlds.

 

f I had to choose between the death penalty and being used as a tool against all that I believe in and have fought for, then I would consider the former the more desirable punishment.

Surely Revan would have wanted to track down and stop Malak from his brutal raids? And even in the game, you get the choice of actually becoming a Sith Lord again and destroy the Jedi. It's not like Revan was deprived of any freedom but to serve the Jedi and the Republic as a slave.

 

And how they chose to go with the first option doesn't really suggest much compassion on their part IMHO.

 

Doesn't suggest compassion but it doesn't suggest hostility and undue torture to Revan either. Like I said, IMO it's more of a neutralisation.

 

After all, they COULD have erased Revan's memory entirely. They didn't do that, because that would have robbed them of access to Revan's memories, which they needed in their struggle against Malak. It is precisely the most dangerous memories - those leading to the Star Forge and its corruptive nature, which they already speculate on, I might add - that they are interested in, since that will lead them to the source of Revan's power... now Malak's.

 

By "dangerous memories" I meant those that would remind Revan of what he was immediately. And what you said just underscores my point: they did not rob Revan of his entire personality; Revan is still Revan. They just made him forget that he's Revan, the Dark Lord of the Sith.

 

You also have to acknowledge that at this point the council really had no other choice. Certainly they did not let him fly off with Bastila because they liked that idea. Vrook hated it, and Vandar and Dorak didn't seem too certain about it either. But at this point, they had no other choice but to follow his memories to wherever it led them. And note that they send Bastila along primarily because she shares Revan's emerging memories, meaning that they still don't trust Revan in any way. But they had already made the choice and had to stick with it - in for a penny, in for a pound. And the only reason they didn't send any masters with Revan and Bastila was because it would only have attracted Malak's attention.

 

But still, Revan is on his own. The brainwashed Revan was a soldier, sent to the fleet where Bastila was in. By his own will he saved Bastila, escaped from Taris and arrived at Dantooine. By his own will he regained his control of the Force. By his own will he chose to take up the mission of searching for the Star Forge. Yes, the masters were hesitant and even reluctant, but that shows not only that they had no choice; it also shows that they did not force it on Revan. The fact that they had no choice does not negate the fact that Revan was acting according to his own will, not under the manipulation or control of the Jedi Council. Even the presence of Bastila cannot say otherwise.

 

It is important to know Revan was acting to his own accord, not being forced to look for the Star Forge. The Council, after concealing his true identity, has little manipulation whatsoever over Revan. They were more like taking a chance, seeing what would happen, their fingers crossed. That's why,

Reprogramming Revan’s mind so he/she would be a slave of the Jedi Counci

is just too harsh an overstatement. The JC just concealed his true identity; they certainly did not make him a slave.

 

I disagree. That's precisely what they did. If it didn't work and Revan still had free choice, then that is Revan's achievement, Revan's will exerting itself. It certainly is not because the council, in their benevolence, have decided to allow Revan free will IMHO.

I'm sorry I have to question your disagreement, unless you can list out precisely what the Council did to control Revan. From Revan being a soldier on the republic fleet onwards, I don't see the Council do anything to tune Revan to their tastes.

 

Ah, but the morality of an act is not based on how moral or unethical the person or persons you do something towards are - it's based entirely on how ethical your own act is. Whether you torture an innocent or a villain doesn't matter - it's wrong either way, because the act alone says something about who you are and the lengths you're willing to go to.

 

True. But I could say, to a certain degree, that's a selfish act. Because you don't want to commit wrong, because you don't want to do an act unethical, because you don't want to take the blame, because you want to be ethically perfect, you refrain from doing it, even knowing that would do good to the galaxy, even knowing you doing it would save many people in the galaxy.

 

While you think yourself is being ethical, you're only being so to Yourself and the subject, in this case, Revan. Are you being ethical to the millions of lives that would have been parished had the Council not made that choice?

 

You think you're doing good, but you don't realize you're only being good to yourself, actiing so so that you can sleep at night and not be haunted for commiting an act that you think is immoral.

 

Why we're taught to be ethical? It's because we hope to do good, not to cause harm to others, but not because we want to feel we're right. To prevent from commiting an act solely because the act is considered unethical (to yourself and to the subject) is to defeat the original purpose of being ethical.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one should do all it takes to achieve a higher good. I understand what the road to hell is paved with, good intentions. But apathy is death. Why can't we take a balance between all the extremes? IMO what the Council did to Revan is not even comparable to what Hitler or other villains did to achieve their goals. Concealing one's identity vs. mass genocide; saving millions of lives vs. "a better world with no Jews"?

 

Being ethical is nice. But just as good intentions can pave the road to hell, downright ethical is not ethical anymore. We don't live as an island. If we did, we can be as ethical as we want and be happy about it. But in this world we don't live alone, and people are selfish, why the hell would they care if you're ethical if you being ethical would cost their lives?

 

I personally like AU as that it offers a felxiable framework to allow you what to do. It also allows you to justify whatever you want to do...which some people see as a weakness. I see it as a strength. If you want to do something, you need to prove it, and using AU can help you prove that what you are doing is right. So, I should be okay with brainwashing Revan. However, there might still be a bit of Kant within me that worries about why is Revan giving such a harsh punishment, which promoted me to start the thread.

 

Kant and AU should guard against each other and balance each other out. We all have our ideals, but more so, practical constraints. It's not like we have to choose either pragmatism or ethical virtues. The extreme of the former is tyrants, and the extreme of the latter is philosophers. We just have to strike a balance by considering the costs and benefits of an action.

 

I know you've said before that you aren't a lawyer Jediphile, but their are times when you sound like one, a good one at that too.

 

Oh, it was I who asked if he's a lawyer. But now no, with due respect, now you sound more like a philosopher, a good one at that too.

[The Architect]

By "dangerous memories" I meant those that would remind Revan of what he was immediately. And what you said just underscores my point: they did not rob Revan of his entire personality; Revan is still Revan. They just made him forget that he's Revan, the Dark Lord of the Sith.

 

I disagree. Revan was not the same person he/she once was before he/she was captured. The Jedi Council changed Revan. They reprogammed his/her mind with a new identity.

 

But still, Revan is on his own. The brainwashed Revan was a soldier, sent to the fleet where Bastila was in. By his own will he saved Bastila, escaped from Taris and arrived at Dantooine. By his own will he regained his control of the Force. By his own will he chose to take up the mission of searching for the Star Forge. Yes, the masters were hesitant and even reluctant, but that shows not only that they had no choice; it also shows that they did not force it on Revan. The fact that they had no choice does not negate the fact that Revan was acting according to his own will, not under the manipulation or control of the Jedi Council. Even the presence of Bastila cannot say otherwise.

 

You had no choice but to save Bastila. Who wouldn't escape Taris when the planet was under attack? Bastila was the one who decided to land on Dantooine. Whether you wanted to or not didn't matter.

 

You also had no choice but to look for the Star Forge. Where in K1 were you given the option of deciding not to look for the Star Forge? You were forced to train as a Jedi.

 

It is important to know Revan was acting to his own accord, not being forced to look for the Star Forge. The Council, after concealing his true identity, has little manipulation whatsoever over Revan. They were more like taking a chance, seeing what would happen, their fingers crossed. That's why, is just too harsh an overstatement. The JC just concealed his true identity; they certainly did not make him a slave.

 

You were forced to train as a Jedi and you were forced to look for the Star Forge. You didn't have a choice.

 

I'm sorry I have to question your disagreement, unless you can list out precisely what the Council did to control Revan. From Revan being a soldier on the republic fleet onwards, I don't see the Council do anything to tune Revan to their tastes.

 

You were never given the choice to not look for the Star Forge and you were never given the choice to not train as a Jedi. You were never given a choice to not take Bastila with you.

 

Master Vandar: "Understand that there is little choice in the matter."

 

Oh, it was I who asked if he's a lawyer. But now no, with due respect, now you sound more like a philosopher, a good one at that too.

 

I know it was you who asked Jediphile that. And I sound like a philosopher eh? Well, that's a good thing IMO.

[The Sith'ari]

You had no choice but to save Bastila. Who wouldn't escape Taris when the planet was under attack? Bastila was the one who decided to land on Dantooine. Whether you wanted to or not didn't matter.

No. Indeed, like in the initial conversation with Carth, there were choices like "I don't want to stay here, if I have to find a way out I'll be on my own." It's just that the game setting constrains us as a player. But in the KotOR reality Revan certainly could have had his way.

 

And you have to distinguish the difference between environmental constraints and constraints set by the Jedi Council. Revan chose to save Bastila because under that particular circumstances, he thought it the best course of action. It's his own thinking, his own will that drives him to save Bastila, or indeed do anything after he's programmed with a new identity. The Jedi Council wasn't God, they didn't tell the Force to make Revan save Bastila.

 

And yes, Bastila took charge, but at that time Bastila did not know he's Revan. It's again, the course of events, uncontrolled by the Jedi Council, that brought Revan to Dantooine.

 

You also had no choice but to look for the Star Forge. Where in K1 were you given the option of deciding not to look for the Star Forge? You were forced to train as a Jedi.

 

Come on, you should have done better than that. It's a bad bad argument by saying "you can't do it in the game so the character had no choice". As a player, we have no choice, of course. As Revan? Of course. Isn't the difference obvious? Would you say Revan did not need to eat and drink because he could not do it in the game?

 

And certainly the Jedi did not force Revan to be a jedi. Better put it this way: No one could force Revan to be a jedi unless he himself wants to. And yes, after he became a jedi, he's forced to take on the mission of finding the Star Forge. But indeed he was given all the rights to decide things for himself: whether to be light or dark, to spare or kill Juhani, to love or neglect Bastila, to redeem her or to rule the galaxy with her. It wasn't as if Revan was exploited as a tool, deprived of his own will.

And it's precisely because of Revan's free will that in the DS ending, eventually the Jedi Order fell.

 

You know what the Jedi Council could have done, if all they want to do is to use Revan as a tool to stop the imminent threat? They could have implant in him some kind of poison, which would kill him in case things go awry after the Star Forge is found. I'm quite sure with the technology in the SW universe this is completely possible. Wouldn't that be a safer way to do it, to make certain the Order and the galaxy won't fall?

 

No, they didnt do it because they know this would be, really, inethical- that would be to take direct control and manipulation of Revan, suffocating any ethical considerations for Revan. Now they made a balance between ideal morals and pragmatism. This is why I think the Council did the best they knew.

 

I know it was you who asked Jediphile that. And I sound like a philosopher eh? Well, that's a good thing IMO.

 

Ah, I was referring to Jediphile about sounding like a philosopher.

You...what about a...*scratches head*...architect?

[Jediphile]

No they did not cast him out (yet) for fighting the war. Else, no jedi would have to return for the hearing then. Revan was casted out when he raged war against the republic and later failed to attend the hearing, when he violated the code of the Council- the Council did it with the authority of the organisation that Revan once belonged to. The later brainwashing of Revan was done with the Jedi playing the role of protector and peacekeeper of the galaxy. It's just like, if I commit a crime, I get kicked out of the "Outstanding Student Association" because I violated their code, and also I get sentenced to imprisonment because I violated the law.

 

The Jedi Council does not dictate Republic law, so while they can judge their own within the order, they have no legal basis for punishing Revan for crimes he committed after he left the order.

 

And you forget that the Council did this without the Republic's knowledge or consent, which says a lot. In short, the council kept it hidden so that they had to answer to no one and cannot be held accountable for their actions. Which naturally begs the age-old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

And your argument for when they cast Revan out does not add up IMHO. Let me ask you this: If Revan was cast out only for waging war against the Republic in the Jedi Civil War, but not for figthing the Mandalorian Wars, then why did the council cast the Exile out of the order? The Exile fought ONLY in the Mandalorian Wars and even came back - as the only one to do so - to face judgment. But they still cast the Exile out for having participated in the war. Are you claiming that had not already cast Revan out for both starting and leading the war as well as causing other jedi to defy the order and join him?

 

This is not so. The precense of other roles does not mean the Jedi's law-enforcing duties are not primary. Even as Revan we got to be the arbiter of a crime scene in Dantooine, while many jedi are sent to complete missions of such nature in numerous worlds.

 

The people among the general population you meet in TSL think of the jedi as religious types first and everything else second. That's a fact.

 

By "dangerous memories" I meant those that would remind Revan of what he was immediately. And what you said just underscores my point: they did not rob Revan of his entire personality; Revan is still Revan. They just made him forget that he's Revan, the Dark Lord of the Sith.

 

Ah, but that is Kreia's interpretation of what happened. Not the council's. Let's just go over what Kreia actually said on the matter.

 

Kreia: "The galaxy would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war. Perhaps he became the dark lord out of necessity, to prevent a greater evil. I do not believe the Jedi Council changed Revan, as they claimed. They merely stripped away the surface, and allowed the true self to emerge again - someone who was willing to wage war to save others."

 

It is quite clear to me, that the "stripping away of the surface" is what Kreia chooses to think, but not what the council intended.

 

And note that while you have choice the game, that choice is still rather limited. We might chalk that up to linear plot, but it actually makes a lot of sense, if we assume it was forced onto Revan by the council, too. For example, on the Endar Spire you do NOT have the option to stab Trask in the back, surrender to the Sith and join their cause. You do NOT have the option of betraying Carth and revealing Bastila's position to the Sith. You do NOT have the option to reject training by the jedi on Dantooine. You do NOT have the option to hide the discovery of the Star Map from the jedi council. You do NOT have the option to ditch Bastila and abandon the search for the Star Maps. You have choice, but until Revan finds out who he really is, you do NOT have any option to act against the interests of the Republic or the jedi council. In fact, it isn't until the Rakatan temple that you have any real choice of whether to act for or against the interests of the Republic and the Jedi Order. You can treat everybody else like dirt and manipulate and exploit them as much as you like, or not, but not the Republic or the jedi. I don't think that's just linear plot.

 

But still, Revan is on his own. The brainwashed Revan was a soldier, sent to the fleet where Bastila was in.

 

That's not entirely correct. Revan was NEVER let out of Bastila's presence by the consent of the council. He was on the Endar Spire because Bastila was, and Trask even mentions that he came aboard at the same time as Bastila and the other jedi. Revan was set free by the attack of the Sith, not because the council allowed it.

 

By his own will he saved Bastila, escaped from Taris and arrived at Dantooine. By his own will he regained his control of the Force. By his own will he chose to take up the mission of searching for the Star Forge.

 

I'm less certain about that, as I've outlined above, there is basis for an alternative interpretation.

 

Yes, the masters were hesitant and even reluctant, but that shows not only that they had no choice; it also shows that they did not force it on Revan. The fact that they had no choice does not negate the fact that Revan was acting according to his own will, not under the manipulation or control of the Jedi Council. Even the presence of Bastila cannot say otherwise.

 

Actually, it suggests just the opposite to me - they made sure Bastila was close to Revan at all times precisely because Revan had already demonstrated more free will than they intended. Even if their manipulation had exerted itself enough to make him aid Bastila, which is not optional in the game, he had still shown resolve in doing so that they did not intend. But I do agree that they had no choice at this point - the die had already been cast. That's what I meant by "in for a penny, in for a pound."

 

True. But I could say, to a certain degree, that's a selfish act. Because you don't want to commit wrong, because you don't want to do an act unethical, because you don't want to take the blame, because you want to be ethically perfect, you refrain from doing it, even knowing that would do good to the galaxy, even knowing you doing it would save many people in the galaxy.

 

While you think yourself is being ethical, you're only being so to Yourself and the subject, in this case, Revan. Are you being ethical to the millions of lives that would have been parished had the Council not made that choice?

 

You think you're doing good, but you don't realize you're only being good to yourself, actiing so so that you can sleep at night and not be haunted for commiting an act that you think is immoral.

 

You know, this is precisely the argument that leaders have used to convince reluctant subordinates to commit horrendous acts throughout history.

 

It is also the reason why the Exile chooses to use the MSG at Malachor V, and as we can see, the consequences are rather far-reaching.

 

In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Conundrum", I distinctly remember the fake Commander MacDuff using this exact argument to convince Captain Picard to destroy an entire race of people. Before that, he has used mind manipulation to implant false memories with the crew, which not only places himself in the position as first officer of the ship, but also at they are at war with a people he wants to destroy. These people, however, are technologically very inferior to the Federation, and Picard could kill them in a second. MacDuff also reveals that the "enemy" has a new mind-altering weapon, which is therefore precisely what they used against the ship. Picard objects, however, because he can find no moral context to destroy an entire race that has no defense against his weapons. MacDuff argues that Picard does not have the right to hesitate, since he puts the Federation in jeopardy by his indecision. Picard really doesn't know either way, but of course, it is by his very doubt and ethical evaluations, that he prevents an entire race of innocents from being destroyed.

 

There may be a chain of command to follow, but people are not machines, nor should they be. "I was only following orders" does not justify immoral actions. It didn't at the Nuremberg trails after WWII, and it doesn't today either. If we follow order without conscience, then we risk becoming the mere instruments of those who cross the line above us in the chain of command. The Nuremberg trials established that a responsibility lies with each person to question the authority of those above us. Basically, nobody has a monopoly or greater claim to insights on morality or ethical behaviour, so on that matter, we are all equal. If a superior comes to me, gives me a gun, then tells me to go into a room and kill a stranger, I will not do so without establishing the moral context first, nor should I. To do so would be immoral.

 

EDIT: Another thing to consider is the will of those innocents you are trying to save. Nobody has asked them which they prefer, and it is rather arrogant to decide the good of the people for them. I might want to have my life saved by the choices of my leaders, but there could be instances, where I find the cost too high, and so would feel anger that this choice was made for me without my consent. Of course, to save the lives of innocents, that would have to be something pretty bad, but governments make these kinds of choices all the time, and it's not always the lives of many innocents that are at stake. There are times when these choices are just make for the sake of the well-being of a majority of people with devastating effects to distinct minorities. To take a real world example, I'm disgusted by how the European Union underbids the products of peasants in the third world just to protect the financial well-being of their own peasants. Yet that choice is made for me without anyone asking me my opinion. Similarly, while innocent lives might be saved by what the jedi council does, there could be those citizens who do not like who they would have to thank for the council making that choice.

 

Why we're taught to be ethical? It's because we hope to do good, not to cause harm to others, but not because we want to feel we're right. To prevent from commiting an act solely because the act is considered unethical (to yourself and to the subject) is to defeat the original purpose of being ethical.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying one should do all it takes to achieve a higher good. I understand what the road to hell is paved with, good intentions. But apathy is death. Why can't we take a balance between all the extremes? IMO what the Council did to Revan is not even comparable to what Hitler or other villains did to achieve their goals. Concealing one's identity vs. mass genocide; saving millions of lives vs. "a better world with no Jews"?

 

Being ethical is nice. But just as good intentions can pave the road to hell, downright ethical is not ethical anymore. We don't live as an island. If we did, we can be as ethical as we want and be happy about it. But in this world we don't live alone, and people are selfish, why the hell would they care if you're ethical if you being ethical would cost their lives?

 

You make it sound as if being ethical is always the easy choice. I disagree completely with that. On the contrary, being always justified by only following orders would be much, much easier. Take Faramir in "The Lord of the Rings" - he clearly disobeys his orders, when he lets the hobbits go to Mordor to destroy the ring. His order was to bring the ring to Gondor, so it could be used as a weapon in the war against Sauron. Those are his orders, and though we may know that to do so would be wrong, Faramir doesn't. By your argument, Faramir should have followed his orders and not "given in" to his own moral compass, because that is weakness. I see it just the other way. It would have been so easy to follow the rules here. Nobody could have blamed him for it. But of course, if he had, Middle Earth would have fallen. To disobey his orders and let the hobbits go on the mere basis that he THINKS that is the right thing to do is a choice that takes conviction beyond measure. Faramir is all the more admirable for daring to do so in spite of his uncertainty.

 

That's not to say that hard choices are not necessary at times. I accept that there are times when you must do a little evil for the greater good. It may be that what the council did was necessary on the same basis. What rubs me the wrong way is that the council shows no sign of regret at this decision, nor do they accept responsibility. They basically just wash their hands of the entire thing on the basis that "well, it was necessary, so who cares, don't you know?" That's not okay. They must be held accountable for their choice and accept the responsibility for it. Otherwise they are no better than they accuse Revan of being. Basically they declare that since the situation demanded it, that justifies everything and so they are above the law. No, they're not! They are accountable, and once the dust settles, they must confess to the sins they had to do for the greater good.

 

Kant and AU should guard against each other and balance each other out. We all have our ideals, but more so, practical constraints. It's not like we have to choose either pragmatism or ethical virtues. The extreme of the former is tyrants, and the extreme of the latter is philosophers. We just have to strike a balance by considering the costs and benefits of an action.

 

Kant is not extreme. To say that you must always treat another human being as a goal and not as a means is not extreme. It is merely respect for life, the opposite of which I would call immoral in any event.

 

I know it was you who asked Jediphile that. And I sound like a philosopher eh? Well, that's a good thing IMO.

 

Damn! I want to be a philosopher too, instead of some crummy lawyer!!

 

Oh, my apologies to all lawyers who read this - I do not intend to slight these hard-working and admirable people in any way

 

Ah, I was referring to Jediphile about sounding like a philosopher.

You...what about a...*scratches head*...architect?

 

Oh good! At least I'm happy now

 

No. Indeed, like in the initial conversation with Carth, there were choices like "I don't want to stay here, if I have to find a way out I'll be on my own." It's just that the game setting constrains us as a player. But in the KotOR reality Revan certainly could have had his way.

 

Yet you only get to say it. You do not get to make the choice. If you tell Carth that Revan and Malak sound like your kind of people, he just objects and you don't get to press the point further.

 

And you have to distinguish the difference between environmental constraints and constraints set by the Jedi Council. Revan chose to save Bastila because under that particular circumstances, he thought it the best course of action. It's his own thinking, his own will that drives him to save Bastila, or indeed do anything after he's programmed with a new identity. The Jedi Council wasn't God, they didn't tell the Force to make Revan save Bastila.

 

No, they didn't make the Force make Revan save Bastila. They just made Revan totally loyal to themselves, so that he would have no other choice than to save Bastila.

 

You're right that the game imposes constraints, and normally I would have no problem with this. However, in KotOR1 you do find out about 75% through the game that there are really, really good reasons why you're "forced" into certain choices earlier in the game's plot. While you can indeed argue that this is just linear plot like in many games, the reverse interpretation is also possible - that you have no choice because you've been reprogrammed and "conditioned" toward a certain mindset by the jedi council.

 

And yes, Bastila took charge, but at that time Bastila did not know he's Revan. It's again, the course of events, uncontrolled by the Jedi Council, that brought Revan to Dantooine.

 

Excuse me? Bastila knows full well who Revan is. It might have seemed rather inconspicuous that she remembers him from the Endar Spire immediately, when she meets him on Taris, but in retrospect it's quite clear to me that she is completely aware of his real identity. Note how she talks about the force having guided him to her and all that - I thought she had taken a blow to the head the first time she mentioned that, since I was only there due to my actions, and certainly had not used the force to do so. It's just further evidence that Bastila must have known to me. And even if we assume that she didn't, her mental link with Revan would certainly tell her soon enough, I'd say.

 

Come on, you should have done better than that. It's a bad bad argument by saying "you can't do it in the game so the character had no choice". As a player, we have no choice, of course. As Revan? Of course. Isn't the difference obvious? Would you say Revan did not need to eat and drink because he could not do it in the game?

 

Normally they would be, but they can be interpreted in an alternate manner in KotOR1. That makes it at least relevant to consider.

 

And certainly the Jedi did not force Revan to be a jedi. Better put it this way: No one could force Revan to be a jedi unless he himself wants to. And yes, after he became a jedi, he's forced to take on the mission of finding the Star Forge. But indeed he was given all the rights to decide things for himself: whether to be light or dark, to spare or kill Juhani, to love or neglect Bastila, to redeem her or to rule the galaxy with her. It wasn't as if Revan was exploited as a tool, deprived of his own will.

And it's precisely because of Revan's free will that in the DS ending, eventually the Jedi Order fell.

 

Yet none of those choices are at odds with the greater goals of the jedi council until you make the ultimate dark/light side choice at the Rakatan temple.

 

You know what the Jedi Council could have done, if all they want to do is to use Revan as a tool to stop the imminent threat? They could have implant in him some kind of poison, which would kill him in case things go awry after the Star Forge is found. I'm quite sure with the technology in the SW universe this is completely possible. Wouldn't that be a safer way to do it, to make certain the Order and the galaxy won't fall?

 

They never intended or expected Revan to exert his will as much as he did. It's that simple to me. They just didn't think it could happen.

[The Sith'ari]

The Jedi Council does not dictate Republic law, so while they can judge their own within the order, they have no legal basis for punishing Revan for crimes he committed after he left the order.

They have no legal basis for punishing him. But I take it they are the sworn protectors of the galaxy. If the Republic is impotent to do anything to save the galaxy, the Jedi come in as the last resort. At least they saw it this way. Had they done nothing, it's most probable that the galaxy would fall.

 

I know there may be no republic law that says Jedi may come in as the last resort to save the galaxy. But even in the legal field, there's common law (case law, where cases are decided by judges at their own discretion to achieve justice when legislation does not cover the a certain area). The law is inadequate to cover all areas; eventually, it all comes down to the circumstances and the justice that's in everyone's heart. And I don't see other organisation more apt than the Jedi to make such a decision.

 

And you forget that the Council did this without the Republic's knowledge or consent, which says a lot. In short, the council kept it hidden so that they had to answer to no one and cannot be held accountable for their actions. Which naturally begs the age-old question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Even if the Council let the Republic know, I don't see how the results could have been changed. There would be debates, but eventually the republic senates would have no choice but to trust in the "wisdom" of the Council, knowing that the galaxy's gonna fall.

 

And your argument for when they cast Revan out does not add up IMHO. Let me ask you this: If Revan was cast out only for waging war against the Republic in the Jedi Civil War, but not for figthing the Mandalorian Wars, then why did the council cast the Exile out of the order?

Oh, wrong word I used- I meant Revan was casted out for defying the order of the council and waging war (including the Mandalorian Wars) and not coming back for the hearing. The Exile was casted out even after his hearing because, well, you remember the cutscene of him in the hearing, with such rage and frustration and no sign of repent.

 

The people among the general population you meet in TSL think of the jedi as religious types first and everything else. That's a fact.

 

Is that really so? If it's just a religion, why did the people on Dantooine seek help from the Jedi to solve crimes? Why did the man whose daughter was slaughtered by Mandalorians asked, "Are you a Jedi?" before asking for execution of the Mandalorians? It all actually shows they generally need and recognise the jedi as guardians and arbiters.

 

Now I know this doesn't give them the right to decide the fate of the republic. But with great power comes great responsibilities; no one else knew enough to save the galaxy the other way.

 

Ah, but that is Kreia's interpretation of what happened. Not the council's. Let's just go over what Kreia actually said on the matter.

 

Kreia: "The galaxy would have fallen if Revan had not gone to war. Perhaps he became the dark lord out of necessity, to prevent a greater evil. I do not believe the Jedi Council changed Revan, as they claimed. They merely stripped away the surface, and allowed the true self to emerge again - someone who was willing to wage war to save others."

 

It is quite clear to me, that the "stripping away of the surface" is what Kreia chooses to think, but not what the council intended.

Then tell me, what did the council intend? Reprogram a new personality that's not Revan? Are you so sure? Perhaps you're Revan incarnate, but you're not the Jedi Council incarnate.

 

All your arguments concerning the intention would be in vain, because Res ipsa loquitur- the evidence speaks for itself. What the council did was to conceal his identity as a former dark lord- it wasn't even permanent. Surely if their techonology was so advanced to reprogram one's identity they would know enough what the possible outcomes are.

 

And note that while you have choice the game, that choice is still rather limited. We might chalk that up to linear plot, but it actually makes a lot of sense, if we assume it was forced onto Revan by the council, too. For example, on the Endar Spire you do NOT have the option to stab Trask in the back, surrender to the Sith and join their cause. You do NOT have the option of betraying Carth and revealing Bastila's position to the Sith. You do NOT have the option to reject training by the jedi on Dantooine. You do NOT have the option to hide the discovery of the Star Map from the jedi council. You do NOT have the option to ditch Bastila and abandon the search for the Star Maps. You have choice, but until Revan finds out who he really is, you do NOT have any option to act against the interests of the Republic or the jedi council. In fact, it isn't until the Rakatan temple that you have any real choice of whether to act for or against the interests of the Republic and the Jedi Order. You can treat everybody else like dirt and manipulate and exploit them as much as you like, or not, but not the Republic or the jedi. I don't think that's just linear plot.

 

Thanks, I know what we get to do in game.

 

Firstly, as mentioned in my previous post addressing The Architect, I think it's a very bad argument to say "because we don't get to do this in the game, the character has no choice". We as players are confined of course, but the choices of the very character in the virtual reality are not. It being a RPG game certainly shed light on the characters' choices in the virtual world, but still it's immensely inadequate to portrait what choices the character actually faces.

 

Then, you said it's not just linear plot, because the presumption that the Jedi forced it all on Revan makes sense. But you haven't really explained why. I admit, the Council would want to be able to control Revan, so that he acts right according to their plan. But the fact is no matter how they want to, they cannot make it happen, unless they can tell the Force what to do. So no, the presumption that the jedi forced it on Revan does not make sense; it doesn't even make common sense. Right from the very beginning of the game, I can already see a million possibilities how Revan could have acted and how things could have turned out. In the Endar Spire, he could have died. In Taris, he could have gone for good, leaving Carth to search for Bastila alone; this is even a choice in the conversation with Carth. Why you didn't get to do it? All because it's a game, it's against the plot.

 

I don't see why it's so hard to understand. Even in real life when you plan something well ahead, there're all sorts of contingencies and vicissitudes that could either affect your action or the course of events.

 

That's not entirely correct. Revan was NEVER let out of Bastila's presence by the consent of the council. He was on the Endar Spire because Bastila was, and Trask even mentions that he came aboard at the same time as Bastila and the other jedi. Revan was set free by the attack of the Sith, not because the council allowed it.

 

But like I said, the presence of Bastila or in fact anyone else does not confine Revan. It help shape his actions, keep him in check, but could never confine or control him. This is indeed proved by the gameplay where one could be still a dark side Revan in Bastila's presence. Indeed, if not for the sake of gameplay, DS Revan could have ditched and killed Bastila and go search for the Star Forge himself.

 

Actually, it suggests just the opposite to me - they made sure Bastila was close to Revan at all times precisely because Revan had already demonstrated more free will than they intended. Even if their manipulation had exerted itself enough to make him aid Bastila, which is not optional in the game, he had still shown resolve in doing so that they did not intend. But I do agree that they had no choice at this point - the die had already been cast. That's what I meant by "in for a penny, in for a pound."

Here, "Revan had already demonstrated more free will than they intended", of course! Because that's just what I'm trying to say- no matter what the Council "intended", they could not actually control Revan by mere supervision. The evidence speaks for itself. It's just incorrect to say "the Council reprogrammed Revan to be a pawn/slave".

 

Now you may argue, that they intended to control Revan, it's just that they couldn't, that the intention itself still makes the act inethical. But I'd say, Indeed they COULD make things happen the way they intended. There're indeed ways the Council could use to control Revan to a more promising degree, like implanting contingent poisons in his body. Why not? They're just making sure the galaxy is safe and no one ever knows. But they did not fall that far. I think that tells us something about what the Council REALLY intended.

 

You know, this is precisely the argument that leaders have used to convince reluctant subordinates to commit horrendous acts throughout history.

 

It is also the reason why the Exile chooses to use the MSG at Malachor V, and as we can see, the consequences are rather far-reaching.

 

In the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Conundrum", I distinctly remember the fake Commander MacDuff using this exact argument to convince Captain Picard to destroy an entire race of people. Before that, he has used mind manipulation to implant false memories with the crew, which not only places himself in the position as first officer of the ship, but also at they are at war with a people he wants to destroy. These people, however, are technologically very inferior to the Federation, and Picard could kill them in a second. MacDuff also reveals that the "enemy" has a new mind-altering weapon, which is therefore precisely what they used against the ship. Picard objects, however, because he can find no moral context to destroy an entire race that has no defense against his weapons. MacDuff argues that Picard does not have the right to hesitate, since he puts the Federation in jeopardy by his indecision. Picard really doesn't know either way, but of course, it is by his very doubt and ethical evaluations, that he prevents an entire race of innocents from being destroyed.

 

When the subordinates follow their orders and commit the acts, did they ponder on what their leaders believed in? Did they wonder, did they comtemplate whether the "good" that their leader preached was truly good and worth the act or not? Yes, of course they did. Anyone with a brain and a conscience would think for themselves. Do you really think they believed in what their leaders said? No, I think a MAJORITY of them knew what they did was wrong, that the "good" they'd been told they're fighting for was not worth it.

 

Why then, did they follow orders? All of the psychological reasons: submission to authority, rationalisation, remoteness of victims, etc. Ever heard of Milgram's Experiment? The perils of obedience. People obey not because they believe in what they're told; man they're never convinced! They know it's wrong, but yet they still follow orders. How pathetic.

 

Oh I wish, how I wish you could blame the leaders for convincing soldiers with this argument, my argument. How I wish all the suffering was indeed due to my argument, because that way all the war and the gruesome acts and all the people put into jeopardy could be spared by just discarding this philosophy.

 

There may be a chain of command to follow, but people are not machines, nor should they be. "I was only following orders" does not justify immoral actions. It didn't at the Nuremberg trails after WWII, and it doesn't today either. If we follow order without conscience, then we risk becoming the mere instruments of those who cross the line above us in the chain of command. The Nuremberg trials established that a responsibility lies with each person to question the authority of those above us. Basically, nobody has a monopoly or greater claim to insights on morality or ethical behaviour, so on that matter, we are all equal.

Clarification: I never said we should follow orders. Indeed, I'm firmly against following orders, blindly. Even when a leader tells me to commit atrocious acts for some supposed "higher good", I'd have to think twice, see whether I'm convinced.

 

If a superior comes to me, gives me a gun, then tells me to go into a room and kill a stranger, I will not do so without establishing the moral context first, nor should I. To do so would be immoral.

 

That's always the ideal. Would you have done the same in reality? When you're oppressed, when you're told to do so by the head of military? When you're told that if you don't kill him, he's gonna kill all your friends and family? Almost all people claim they would not follow orders to electric-shock a stranger had they been in Milgram's Experiment. But see how it turned out- a few even managed till the end of the experiment and "killed" a total stranger!

 

You make it sound as if being ethical is always the easy choice. I disagree completely with that.

 

I never said it's easy to make the ethical choice. Yes indeed as what I explained above, it could be very, very hard. I was just trying to say, it's an ideal that few in very few circumstances could achieve. It's impractical because we're always faced with contradictary circumstances. As in the case of the Jedi Council.

 

That's not to say that hard choices are not necessary at times. I accept that there are times when you must do a little evil for the greater good. It may be that what the council did was necessary on the same basis. What rubs me the wrong way is that the council shows no sign of regret at this decision, nor do they accept responsibility. They basically just wash their hands of the entire thing on the basis that "well, it was necessary, so who cares, don't you know?" That's not okay.

 

They didn't really give such an impression to me though. They surely are arrogant, but I don't feel they're completely ok with it. Of course you may be correct, but at least in the game I did not see them display such emotions explicitly.

 

They must be held accountable for their choice and accept the responsibility for it. Otherwise they are no better than they accuse Revan of being. Basically they declare that since the situation demanded it, that justifies everything and so they are above the law. No, they're not! They are accountable, and once the dust settles, they must confess to the sins they had to do for the greater good.

 

Again, I agree, but there's no concrete evidence in that game that suggests they're proud of it.

 

Kant is not extreme. To say that you must always treat another human being as a goal and not as a means is not extreme. It is merely respect for life, the opposite of which I would call immoral in any event.

Ah...I don't know Kant much, don't what I typed was not what I meant. As long as you know what I was trying to say!

 

Damn! I want to be a philosopher too, instead of some crummy lawyer!!

 

Oh, my apologies to all lawyers who read this - I do not intend to slight these hard-working and admirable people in any way

 

Ah, in fact, I was talking about you! Not The Architect. He may best remain an architect.

 

And oh, you just called me a crummy lawyer! Well, not really, do law students count?

[Allronix]

Question: Say the Spire was never attacked. Revan never found out what she/he had been, and the Star Forge went up in smoke.

 

What would the Jedi Council have done with the "grunt." They had no ability to keep Revan II, because it would have tipped their hand. And they couldn't just let Revan II just walk away...

 

Would they have imprisoned him/her in an Enclave for the rest of her life?

 

Would they have turned him/her over to the Republic, washing their hands of the matter while the Senate gleefully argues over who throws the switch?

 

Would they pull the "special case" card and retrain?

 

Would they let the grunt continue on in ignorance?

[Jediphile]

They have no legal basis for punishing him. But I take it they are the sworn protectors of the galaxy. If the Republic is impotent to do anything to save the galaxy, the Jedi come in as the last resort. At least they saw it this way. Had they done nothing, it's most probable that the galaxy would fall.

 

Perhaps, but it's still a two-edged sword. If Revan had not gone to war against the Mandalorians, then the galaxy would also have fallen. At least according to both Kreia and the exile. Does Revan deserve punishment for acting when the jedi council wouldn't? In TSL nobody seems to dispute that the galaxy would have fallen, had Revan and Malak not waged war against them. By their inaction the council basically forced Revan's hand in the matter, so they do share the responsibility for the subsequent situation, I think. Not through they actions, but certainly through their neglect. They failed both Revan and the Republic at the time. And even as they condemned Revan, he was hailed as a hero in the Republic.

 

Even if the Council let the Republic know, I don't see how the results could have been changed. There would be debates, but eventually the republic senates would have no choice but to trust in the "wisdom" of the Council, knowing that the galaxy's gonna fall.

 

Bear the disagreements between the jedi council and the Republic in mind. The jedi order refused to go to war, and even in KotOR1, some in the Republic, such as Carth, are still sore about it. Revan and Malak may have been cast out of the order, but they were heroes to the Republic.

 

Oh, wrong word I used- I meant Revan was casted out for defying the order of the council and waging war (including the Mandalorian Wars) and not coming back for the hearing. The Exile was casted out even after his hearing because, well, you remember the cutscene of him in the hearing, with such rage and frustration and no sign of repent.

 

Actually, you can be as defiant or as repentant as you like in that scene - it just doesn't make any difference.

 

Is that really so? If it's just a religion, why did the people on Dantooine seek help from the Jedi to solve crimes? Why did the man whose daughter was slaughtered by Mandalorians asked, "Are you a Jedi?" before asking for execution of the Mandalorians? It all actually shows they generally need and recognise the jedi as guardians and arbiters.

 

To a point, but try playing TSL and then see how the population of Dantooine remember the jedi five years later. It's not a particularly rosy picture.

 

Then tell me, what did the council intend? Reprogram a new personality that's not Revan? Are you so sure? Perhaps you're Revan incarnate, but you're not the Jedi Council incarnate.

 

No, but given the council's decisions, nor would I wish to be. All the evidence I see suggest that the council never planned to have Revan's memories resurface or for him to demonstrate free will again. They just wanted him to be a average joe close to Bastila, so that they could tap into his memories, which they needed to unveil the source of Malak's power. And as Malak points out later, Bastila used this tie to explore the dark side, because she was drawn to it and knew it was the only way the masters would let her anywhere near it. The masters didn't even realise that. And at the same time they are all up in arms about how Revan has managed to reclaim some of his old self. The game doesn't reveal at the time, but it's rather obvious that it is him they are talking about in all those closed sessions with Bastila on Dantooine. Vrook says it best, I think: "What if we should undertake to train this one, and the dark lord should return?" Clearly the masters are very uncertain about it all. And they are also worried. So needless to say, letting Revan run loose with free will was not their first choice.

 

All your arguments concerning the intention would be in vain, because Res ipsa loquitur- the evidence speaks for itself. What the council did was to conceal his identity as a former dark lord- it wasn't even permanent. Surely if their techonology was so advanced to reprogram one's identity they would know enough what the possible outcomes are.

 

Clearly they do not know, or at least, it did not turn out as they expected. If Revan had free will and began to remember things, then it certainly wasn't according to the council's wishes. To them, he was nothing but a tool they wanted to use to extract information from. And it clearly worries them, that he does not remain such.

 

Thanks, I know what we get to do in game.

 

I know you do. My apologies if I gave another impression. It was not my intent. I probably should not have put all those "NOT" in upper case...

 

Firstly, as mentioned in my previous post addressing The Architect, I think it's a very bad argument to say "because we don't get to do this in the game, the character has no choice". We as players are confined of course, but the choices of the very character in the virtual reality are not. It being a RPG game certainly shed light on the characters' choices in the virtual world, but still it's immensely inadequate to portrait what choices the character actually faces.

 

Then, you said it's not just linear plot, because the presumption that the Jedi forced it all on Revan makes sense.

 

Actually, I said that I do not think it's just linear plot. The point is that some of it naturally is, but since Revan's mind and personality has been "altered", it is worth considering what choices he does get. And I find it interesting that until he reaches the Rakatan temple and finally decides whether to finally embrace or reject Darth Revan, he does not get to make one choice in the game that runs against the best interests of the Republic or the jedi order. Although you're right that K1, like most CRPGs, has a linear plot, I do find that to be worthy of note.

 

But you haven't really explained why. I admit, the Council would want to be able to control Revan, so that he acts right according to their plan. But the fact is no matter how they want to, they cannot make it happen, unless they can tell the Force what to do. So no, the presumption that the jedi forced it on Revan does not make sense; it doesn't even make common sense. Right from the very beginning of the game, I can already see a million possibilities how Revan could have acted and how things could have turned out. In the Endar Spire, he could have died. In Taris, he could have gone for good, leaving Carth to search for Bastila alone; this is even a choice in the conversation with Carth. Why you didn't get to do it? All because it's a game, it's against the plot.

 

It is also against the best interests of the Republic and the jedi council, so we cannot deny the possibility that it was due to influence by the jedi council. Yes, Revan could have died on the Endar Spire, but that was a surprise attack that the council never anticipated. And clearly Revan's actions on Taris are not consistent with the choices Darth Revan would have made there. That the council could not make Revan become entirely submissive to their desires is certainly not for a lack of trying.

 

Zez-Kai Ell: "Suffice to say redemption was not Revan's choice, and I have never believed those of the Council who attempt to console themselves otherwise for the crime they committed."

 

There you have it - straight from the mouth of the council itself. Or one of them, anyway. It's how Zez-Kai Ell admits to things like this that makes him my favorite master in TSL. He knows they did something bad, and he accepts it and regrets it too. We never hear any of the other masters do that, though I could believe it for Vandar, Lonna Vash, Kavar, and possibly Dorak.

 

I don't see why it's so hard to understand. Even in real life when you plan something well ahead, there're all sorts of contingencies and vicissitudes that could either affect your action or the course of events.

 

It's not that it's hard to understand, just that it's not consistent with what the council does or even says itself.

 

But like I said, the presence of Bastila or in fact anyone else does not confine Revan. It help shape his actions, keep him in check, but could never confine or control him. This is indeed proved by the gameplay where one could be still a dark side Revan in Bastila's presence. Indeed, if not for the sake of gameplay, DS Revan could have ditched and killed Bastila and go search for the Star Forge himself.

 

Well, Bastila is fast falling to the dark side herself, so I don't see that as a particularly compelling argument. She certainly is not pillar of light herself, and she makes a lot of mistakes too. Besides, according to Malak, her main interest in Revan is that she can use her link with him to explore the dark side, which the masters would otherwise never allow. Quite simply, poor little Bastila is drawn like a moth to the flame to Revan's dark side, and even if Revan resists and rejects that dark side, Bastila still manages to fall, because she has already been lured away from the light.

 

Here, "Revan had already demonstrated more free will than they intended", of course! Because that's just what I'm trying to say- no matter what the Council "intended", they could not actually control Revan by mere supervision. The evidence speaks for itself. It's just incorrect to say "the Council reprogrammed Revan to be a pawn/slave".

 

Except Zez-Kai Ell admits just the opposite. Like I said, Revan may have exerted free will, but that was not the council's credit or choice.

 

Now you may argue, that they intended to control Revan, it's just that they couldn't, that the intention itself still makes the act inethical. But I'd say, Indeed they COULD make things happen the way they intended. There're indeed ways the Council could use to control Revan to a more promising degree, like implanting contingent poisons in his body. Why not? They're just making sure the galaxy is safe and no one ever knows. But they did not fall that far. I think that tells us something about what the Council REALLY intended.

 

Well, Zez-Kai Ell says otherwise, as far as I can tell.

 

Clarification: I never said we should follow orders. Indeed, I'm firmly against following orders, blindly. Even when a leader tells me to commit atrocious acts for some supposed "higher good", I'd have to think twice, see whether I'm convinced.

 

Good.

 

That's always the ideal. Would you have done the same in reality? When you're oppressed, when you're told to do so by the head of military? When you're told that if you don't kill him, he's gonna kill all your friends and family? Almost all people claim they would not follow orders to electric-shock a stranger had they been in Milgram's Experiment. But see how it turned out- a few even managed till the end of the experiment and "killed" a total stranger!

 

I should hope that I would resist, but the truth is that this is the sort of answer that nobody can probably answer truthfully until they've been there. And naturally, if you were forced to kill a stranger under threat of death to your loved ones, then almost anybody would do it. I could claim that I wouldn't, but it would be too easy a claim to make without having to prove it. And so the say it would be arrogant. If I were a religious man, however, I would pray that I would resist.

 

I never said it's easy to make the ethical choice. Yes indeed as what I explained above, it could be very, very hard. I was just trying to say, it's an ideal that few in very few circumstances could achieve. It's impractical because we're always faced with contradictary circumstances. As in the case of the Jedi Council.

 

That I agree with. Ethical choices are hard. I can accept that the council stumbled. What annoys me is that they still insist on looking down on Revan despite having done a dirty little secret themselves. They place themselves above the law and apply rules to others, that they won't be judged by themselves. The apply double standard. I don't like hypocrisy.

 

Again, I agree, but there's no concrete evidence in that game that suggests they're proud of it.

 

Not much evidence of regret either. I always felt that after Vandar praised Revan, "the prodigal knight", and the all the celebration was over, Revan would casually walk over to Vander and say, "Okay, now I've saved the Republic and smiled to the press too, we need to consider what you guys did to me. We need to have a little chat about that..."

[Allronix]

I always felt that, with Exile's sentence, the Council sentenced one man to banishment and set the legal precedent and message for any of Revan's followers - Republic OR Jedi on what they could expect coming home. Translation: "We already think you're a Sith, so we'll treat you like one." ANY among Revan's Jedi that was considering walking away from the Sith got the double whammy of a Dark Lord on one end and a Council that spits on them on the other. Small wonder you were brawling your way through fallen Jedi right and left in K1!

 

And the problem with things like this is that things tend to snowball? Well, anyone familiar with the Dr. Light dielmma in the JLA? This swaggering supervillian breaks into JLA headquarters and rapes the wife of one of the Leaguers. The JLA's split - JLA, like Jedi, don't kill their prisoners. However, Light makes the boast that he'll be back for everyone's spouses, kids, and friends. They know the guy's bastard enough to make good on the boast. So, someone suggests a mindwipe and personality rewrite.

 

Green Arrow, Green Lantern, and Black Canary say "Don't go there. We're the good guys, and it'll just make the bad guys even nastier when this gets out." Hawkman would just as soon kill the guy, but votes for mindwipe. Zatanna, Flash, and Atom side with the mindwipe - overruling the other three. Now, as readers of Identity Crisis know, Light still was a supervillian, but he was a complete freaking joke.

 

Until the mindwipe wore off. And when word got out among the supervillian crowd that the almighty JLA was answering rape with rape? Well, the villians became more desperate, more ruthless. They weren't going to be arrested anymore, they were going to go down and take as much as possible with them.

[SilentScope001]

And, of course, it also begs the question of what what exactly makes the Republic and the jedi order worth preserving, if you're willing to sacrifice the higher ideals they were based on to save the mere existence of these institutions themselves.

 

I like the debate, but let me explain to Jediphile what may be going through the mind of Revan and the Jedi Council when he decided to do their "crimes that should be cursed and hated/heroic actions that should be praised forever".

 

In TSL, I talked to a Republic spy in Onderon, who is basically spying on Onderon and General Vaklu. I asked him why the Republic is worried about Onderon and why is it willing to go to sort lenghts to ensure that it stays in the Republic, rather than leave peacefully. The Republic spy replies that if Onderon leaves, so does the rest of the Republic, and the Republic would die. I ask why the Republic need to surivie. Here are his three mains points:

 

--Ecomonic prosperity is caused by the worlds being interconnected, everyone take it for granted. The trade will be stopped if the Republic collaspes.

--No matter how corrupt the Senate is, it smoothes over differences. If the Senate collaspes, then petty rivarlies will turn into full-scale wars.

--Eventually, the entire galaxy could be thrown into a dark age.

 

So, if the Republic falls, there would be no economic growth and there will be little, minor wars that will consume the galaxy...causing a dark age of terror.

 

Which is why Revan fell to the Dark Side to save the Republic, and why the Jedi Council did what it did. Because if the Republic falls, then the economy of the planets shall collaspe, and all the planets will become indepedent and kill each other. There will be a dark age...and no matter how Dark the action is...the Dark Age ushered in by the Sith Empire (either the True Sith or Revan's Sith) will be far worse.

 

This is utter realism, pragmatisim. This has nothing to do with ideas, just basic economics and worrying about stablity. The Senate is corrupt, the Republic is a burecratic mess...but it must stay alive, because if it doesn't, people will be poor. There will be no more trade.

 

But, one may wonder...Does it really matter? Is what you are doing really that important, and will it prevent the darknesss that you fear? Atris, who brought the Jedi Exile to act as bait for Sion, and who caused for the destruction of Katarr, note that sometimes, it seems that you have no other choice, so you do your actions, and feel as if you are railroaded...until it comes to a point when you really have no grounds on which to stand on.

[The Architect]

The Sith’ari (or should I say, Evln)? You’re right. I should have done better than that. I made a weak and incoherent argument before, which is unusual of me.

 

I can do better than that. I can play the ‘long colossal ramblings’ post game too, if I put enough thought and effort into it that is. What I did was a lazy post. I guess I was in a lazy rush mode there. I shouldn’t have posted then.

 

Now, here comes a better post…

 

First of all, you said that when Bastila took charge on Taris, at that time she did not know that you were Revan. That is wrong. She knew all along that you were Revan. Now, I agree that ‘forced’ was not the most appropriate term for me to use in describing the Jedi Council’s actions towards Revan.

 

I do know that KotOR is a very linear plot driven CRPG and developing technicalities in terms of size, time and costing was probably the main reason why you were forced to train as a Jedi and look for the Star Forge, however it is wrong of you to say that the Jedi Council had no manipulation over Revan’s actions.

 

Why? Because why do you think they captured Revan in the first place? To tap into his/her memories, discover his/her knowledge of the Star Forge, find it and destroy it, that’s why. I doubt the Jedi Council would have just let Revan go, if he/she refused to look for the Star Maps and find the Star Forge.

 

They wanted Revan to go with Bastila. They wanted Revan to lead Bastila to the Star Maps. They wanted Bastila to use her bond with Revan to tap into his/her mind so she could find the Star Forge.

 

Note how the Jedi Council never says to you that you don’t have to look for the Star Maps if you don’t want to. Okay, so they didn’t physically force Revan to look for the Star Maps, but how else were they going to find the Star Maps, if Revan never went with Bastila? The Jedi Council clearly wanted you to find the Star Maps and find the Star Forge.

 

As Jediphile has said, K1 enforces constraints; it is a very linear game from a plot perspective, however, the interpretation that it’s because you've been reprogrammed and conditioned towards a certain mindset by the Jedi Council is certainly not out of the question.

 

Heck, Bastila says on the Leviathan that the Jedi Council reprogrammed Revan’s mind and made him/her into someone loyal to the Republic, the Jedi and Bastila. Note that even though you can be an anti-Republic, anti-Jedi person in K1, you are still looking for the Star Maps, and you still trained as a Jedi, even if you didn’t want to.

 

You can’t deny that the Jedi Council must have had some effect on Revan’s mind. Okay, so they couldn’t really change Revan’s personality, who he/she is at his/her core, but so what? Why would the Council even bother reprogramming Revan’s mind, if it wasn’t going to have any effect on him/her, as you seem to be inferring?

 

You have to remember that you are forced to train as a Jedi, find the Star Maps and find the Star Forge. Why? Well come on! As I said, surely the Jedi Council must have had some effect on Revan’s mind, since they did actually reprogram Revan’s mind. It's not like they just made Revan forget that he/she was Revan, and that's it.

 

Oh, and I'm...I'm not the philosopher? It's not fair I tell ya! I thought I was teh philosopher.

 

But it makes sense that you'd call me an architect since my username is The Architect.

 

*Shakes fist at Jediphile*. You took my philosopher title away from me damn it (an Obsidian member called me the philosopher in a PM)!

 

*Hears Jediphile's evil, mockery laughter at me*

 

I don't hear ya laughing now eh?

[Jediphile]

I like the debate, but let me explain to Jediphile what may be going through the mind of Revan and the Jedi Council when he decided to do their "crimes that should be cursed and hated/heroic actions that should be praised forever".

 

In TSL, I talked to a Republic spy in Onderon, who is basically spying on Onderon and General Vaklu. I asked him why the Republic is worried about Onderon and why is it willing to go to sort lenghts to ensure that it stays in the Republic, rather than leave peacefully. The Republic spy replies that if Onderon leaves, so does the rest of the Republic, and the Republic would die. I ask why the Republic need to surivie. Here are his three mains points:

 

--Ecomonic prosperity is caused by the worlds being interconnected, everyone take it for granted. The trade will be stopped if the Republic collaspes.

--No matter how corrupt the Senate is, it smoothes over differences. If the Senate collaspes, then petty rivarlies will turn into full-scale wars.

--Eventually, the entire galaxy could be thrown into a dark age.

 

So, if the Republic falls, there would be no economic growth and there will be little, minor wars that will consume the galaxy...causing a dark age of terror.

 

Which is why Revan fell to the Dark Side to save the Republic, and why the Jedi Council did what it did. Because if the Republic falls, then the economy of the planets shall collaspe, and all the planets will become indepedent and kill each other. There will be a dark age...and no matter how Dark the action is...the Dark Age ushered in by the Sith Empire (either the True Sith or Revan's Sith) will be far worse.

 

This is utter realism, pragmatisim. This has nothing to do with ideas, just basic economics and worrying about stablity. The Senate is corrupt, the Republic is a burecratic mess...but it must stay alive, because if it doesn't, people will be poor. There will be no more trade.

 

I do understand this entire argument. When I, and probably others too, have not delved into it, it's because (at least in my case) I don't think it's relevant to consider in this discussion. At least in relation to what the council had to do to stop Revan. Why? Well, in TSL you meet G0T0, who explains quite clearly that while Revan was trying to conquer the Republic, he also took care not to devastate the economy. Though it is a goal to keep the Republic free of oppression by opposing Revan and Malak, there was no question that the Republic - at least under Revan's rule - would still have survived as an economic entity, since Revan was careful not to destroy the Republic's infrastructure. And I suppose that with Darth Revan as ruler, there would have been no local dissent, like on Onderon, since the answer would have been the iron fist. If you look at it that way, the council actually places the Republic, as an economy, in a lot of danger by capturing Revan, since it means the Sith are now led by Malak, who has no other goal than to crush all resistance everywhere by whatever means and regardless of what effects it will have on the Republic's economy.

 

But, one may wonder...Does it really matter? Is what you are doing really that important, and will it prevent the darknesss that you fear? Atris, who brought the Jedi Exile to act as bait for Sion, and who caused for the destruction of Katarr, note that sometimes, it seems that you have no other choice, so you do your actions, and feel as if you are railroaded...until it comes to a point when you really have no grounds on which to stand on.

 

Not sure if I get your point here, but if you're speaking to the linear plots of CRPGs, then that has always been a problem. And it will continue to be, since the games do not have a GM to allow and consider choices made by the player that were not thought of in advance. Until they put advanced neural networks in the computers that can think and reason to some degree, we're pretty much stuck with CRPGs as they are now.

[The Architect]

Which is why Revan fell to the Dark Side to save the Republic

 

This isn't directed at you by the way, but it's something I would like to address.

 

I don’t like this whole ‘Revan fell to the DS to save the Republic’ theory. Why? For a start, whether you like it or not, Revan was fighting against the Jedi Order and the Republic.

 

Need proof? Malak: “All you ever imagined was an infinite fleet rolling fourth to crush the Republic.” Why would Malak say that if he wasn’t sure what Revan intended? I think he would know his best friend well enough.

 

Still not convinced? Watch the vision on Taris just after you meet Bastila again. It shows Revan choking a Republic officer. Now come on! If that’s not proof that Revan was fighting against the Jedi Order and the Republic, then I don’t know what is.

 

Perhaps Revan did originally start out with the intention of saving the Republic and he/she did sacrifice himself/herself to the dark side to save the Republic, however, nothing can change the fact that Revan was fighting against the Republic and the Jedi Order in KotOR, so that good intention never lasted.

 

Personally, I believe that Revan fell to the dark side and was seduced by the teachings of the ‘True Sith’ at the Trayus Academy on Malachor V. But instead of being a brutish, destructive jackass like Malak, Revan began a massive war of conversion.

 

The way I see it, Revan’s goal was to convert as much of the Republic and the Jedi Order as he/she could to the DS, in an effort to turn it into a Sith Empire, that he/she alone would rule.

 

Those who refused to join Revan would die. I don’t think that Revan left key parts of the Republic’s infrastructure intact in some grand scheme to save the Republic, I believe that Revan left key parts of the Republic’s infrastructure intact, because he/she saw the worth in preserving it, as it would become useful assets of his/her Sith Empire. That’s my take on it.

 

So Revan's plan wasn't to save the Republic IMO, it was to keep it's key infrastructure intact, so he/she has a good Sith Empire basically. Replacing the Republic with a Sith Empire (like how Palpatine turned the Republic into the Galactic Empire) isn't 'saving' the Republic if you ask me.