Debate:: Atris's Role In KotOR III (On Sunday!)

[The Source]

Debate:: Atris's Role In KotOR III (On Sunday!) :: Spoilers Inside!

Lets keep this rolling.

 

Here is another debate, which will begin on Sunday. I welcome all of you to the second debate of "KIII". If you have read the "SW: Essentials - Chronology", you will have learned that a single Sith Lord survives after "KotOR II". As a result of the Sith Civil War in "KotOR II", only one Sith Lord has managed to live through the chaos. Was it Atris? Was it the Exile? As some of us may know, "KotOR" canon has defined the Exile as being female and Sith. However, the fate of Atris as a Sith Lord is known. What role would she have in a possible "KotOR III"? Will she be involved with the 'true Sith' invasion, or is there something else planned for her?

 

Time: 8:00 pm (E.S.T. - US)

When: Sunday 7, 2008

[JCarter426]

Yeah, yeah, I'm not starting the debate early. Just wanted to point out...

 

"KotOR" canon has defined the Exile as being female and Sith.

...that the Exile's alignment has not been canonized, and also:

 

Time: 8:00 pm

Which time zone?

[The Source]

Yeah, yeah, I'm not starting the debate early. Just wanted to point out...

 

 

...that the Exile's alignment has not been canonized, and also:

 

which time zone?

Easter Standard Time (US)

[Shem]

If KOTOR III does anything like they did in TSL, where you pick the genders and what side of the Force the previous two main characters were, I would have to say that if Atris is going to be shown, she would only show up if the Exile was light side and it would be more of a cameo like how Bastila's role was in TSL.

[Non-false Jedi]

Unlike Bastila I feel Atris should have either a very minor or no role in KOTOR III. I think there are too many, and too ambigious possible fates for her in the end. She could either be killed, locked in a room with evil Sith Holocrons, or go into exile. Did I miss anything? None of those outcomes seem condusive to allow a nautral part to play in a third game.

[DAWUSS]

Unlike Bastila I feel Atris should have either a very minor or no role in KOTOR III. I think there are too many, and too ambigious possible fates for her in the end. She could either be killed, locked in a room with evil Sith Holocrons, or go into exile. Did I miss anything? None of those outcomes seem condusive to allow a nautral part to play in a third game.

 

Exile - She is either never heard from again, or she gets redeemed and reprises her role as Jedi historian

 

Holocrons - She goes insane, possibly ends up dead later

 

Dead - Dead

 

Of those 5 outcomes, only one really allows for much of a role at all in K3.

 

 

Now the Telosian Polar Academy may have some use, however.

[Kas'!m]

Not part of the debate, but are you sure it said after KOTOR II or after the Sith Civl War? First you said one sith survived after KOTOR II, but your next sentence says after the civil war. and according to Wookiepedia, which people here like to reference, the Exile was female, but not a Sith. In fact, the canon for all Star Wars games is the lightside ending.

[Rev7]

How many more of these debates are you going to start Source?!

 

Well, thank you for the heads up, and I will definately be there.

 

 

Thanks!

[Ctrl Alt Del]

Interesting. I missed the last debate, but I'll try to be there (or here) on sunday.

 

I think I'll keep for me what my tongue is itching to say. At least until the weekend.

[DAWUSS]

How many more of these debates are you going to start Source?!

 

Well, thank you for the heads up, and I will definately be there.

 

 

Thanks!

 

A weekly feature actually would be fun

[The Source]

How many more of these debates are you going to start Source?!

 

Well, thank you for the heads up, and I will definately be there.

 

Thanks!

 

A weekly feature actually would be fun

As many as you people want. I think its cool to have these discussions. Picking a time and day will allow everyone 'time' to think about the questions. I thought the last one went off pretty cool. Everyone had brought some insight into our previous debate, and you all have shead some light on things I didn't know.

 

See you Sunday at 8:000 pm E.S.T..

[Gurges-Ahter]

See you Sunday at 8:000 pm E.S.T..

8 thousand PM? That's too late for me.

Only kidding - I think it's a good idea as well.

[Miles Edgeworth]

W00T! First Post well on Sunday, that is. I really hope it is Atris she pretty much got shafted because of cut content and I think it would be great if her character was expanded. (Besides, she looks HAWT in black. ) Also, when was made it canon that TSL had a DS ending?

 

EDIT: EST, D'oh! Also Sunday is the 8th.

[Samuel Dravis]

I personally do not think that Atris is existent in any possible world where she is also a Sith.

 

Atris is a woman;

All women are mortal;

Therefore, Atris will die.

 

The above syllogism demonstrates the importance of logic in these discussions. Whereas, had I simply given an opinion without founding it in rational, logical truth, I would have been completely ignored, now my post will probably require some amount of refutation in order to be dismissed.

 

Of course, any credible refutation of my position must have five qualities:

 

1) It must be logically valid;

2) It must be logically sound;

3) The conclusion must follow from the premises;

4) It must show either that:

a) Atris is not a woman; OR

b) Atris is not mortal.

5) The noumenal Atris must be distinguished from the phenomenal.

 

Additionally, sources must be cited for these points and properly documented in APA format.

 

I will, of course, be pleased to respond to your replies,

 

Samuel Dravis

[Darth InSidious]

I personally do not think that Atris is existent in any possible world where she is also a Sith.

 

Atris is a woman;

All women are mortal;

Therefore, Atris will die.

 

The above syllogism demonstrates the importance of logic in these discussions. Whereas, had I simply given an opinion without founding it in rational, logical truth, I would have been completely ignored, now my post will probably require some amount of refutation in order to be dismissed.

 

Of course, any credible refutation of my position must have five qualities:

 

1) It must be logically valid;

2) It must be logically sound;

3) The conclusion must follow from the premises;

4) It must show either that:

a) Atris is not a woman; OR

b) Atris is not mortal.

5) The noumenal Atris must be distinguished from the phenomenal.

 

Additionally, sources must be cited for these points and properly documented in APA format.

 

I will, of course, be pleased to respond to your replies,

 

Samuel Dravis

 

Tosh.

 

This view, I fear, arises from a misrepresentation of the normative as an inherently diuretic inculcation, rather than, as Zeno of Alexandria posited in his Ponderings, an incantative quasi-intransitive statement of a posteriori spagyron.

 

The effective upshot of this is to confuse the Nichomachaean contemplation of Atrisness with the Pelagian induction of Atrisism. This mixing of n-Atris and p-Atris would cause great problems should it be taken seriously. The resulting mismatch between conceptions of pn-Atris and np Atris, in a fundamentally a priori synthetic environment is an easily made category error, but should not be considered cleisthenian enhancement.

 

In the end, all questions of pn-Atris are fundamentally the same as those of vq-Atris, but differ in dialectical anhedonics, and should be left as such, rather than defined in pseudo-non-cognitivist Socratic scholasticism.

[Rev7]

As many as you people want. I think its cool to have these discussions. Picking a time and day will allow everyone 'time' to think about the questions. I thought the last one went off pretty cool. Everyone had brought some insight into our previous debate, and you all have shead some light on things I didn't know.

 

See you Sunday at 8:000 pm E.S.T..

I think that these discussions are great. I think that a weekly feature would be awesome.

 

Anyways, I will see you all then!

[Samuel Dravis]

Tosh.

I have noted your use of the derogative "Tosh" and, after reading the rest of your reply, I have unfortunately realized that it does not acquire any more redeeming qualities than one may expect from such an illustrious beginning. However, due to the fact that others are reading this discussion, I feel compelled to reply to your "objections."

 

This view, I fear, arises from a misrepresentation of the normative as an inherently diuretic inculcation, rather than, as Zeno of Alexandria posited in his Ponderings, an incantative quasi-intransitive statement of a posteriori spagyron.

I deny, of course, that I have misrepresented the normative Atris as anything but her own self in my several logics. Zeno's Ponderings, as you pointed out, did show that previous logicians did make this mistake. However, I submit that 1) I have not done so; 2) There is no evidence to suppose that I have done so in this discussion, and 3) Such accusations without evidence are merely ad hominem personal attacks.

 

Moreover, your assessment that the spagyron intransitive was a posteriori is clearly false. My argument in that regard was that, in all possible worlds, no Atris could exist while being a Sith. The reasoning for this is clearly not a posteriori, but are in fact a priori, given that normative Sith activities are not in dispute.

 

 

The effective upshot of this is to confuse the Nichomachaean contemplation of Atrisness with the Pelagian induction of Atrisism. This mixing of n-Atris and p-Atris would cause great problems should it be taken seriously. The resulting mismatch between conceptions of pn-Atris and np Atris, in a fundamentally a priori synthetic environment is an easily made category error, but should not be considered cleisthenian enhancement.

I do agree that such errors are easily made. But, it is also my opinion that those errors are easily made because they can be confused for real arguments easily. And so in this case; you have confused my p-Atris with an actual error of meaning. I do not (and have not!) stated that p-Atris is equivalent with any particular n-Atris, nor that they should be so equivocated; but rather, there are similarities between the two that are worth looking at, even if we do not consider them to be "the same."

 

In the end, all questions of pn-Atris are fundamentally the same as those of vq-Atris, but differ in dialectical anhedonics, and should be left as such, rather than defined in pseudo-non-cognitivist Socratic scholasticism.

You speak of dialectical anhedonics, but then in your own post have confused my own arguments into incoherence? I ask you, sir: what would happen if, e.g., you were to compare vq-Atris to the p-Atris which I have described? I would suggest that there are no detectable differences; and this is because they are indeed the same thing (the noumenal Atris). Quoting Shenzhe-Wan, on this issue: "Many have forgotten the essential simplicity of all things. The distinction between the vq- and p- classes of natural propositions is that they are simply different words for the same thing." [emphasis added]

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Samuel Dravis

[DAWUSS]

W00T! First Post well on Sunday, that is. I really hope it is Atris she pretty much got shafted because of cut content and I think it would be great if her character was expanded. (Besides, she looks HAWT in black. ) Also, when was made it canon that TSL had a DS ending?

 

EDIT: EST, D'oh! Also Sunday is the 8th.

 

I thought LS was canon, according to NEGD

[Darth InSidious]

I have noted your use of the derogative "Tosh" and, after reading the rest of your reply, I have unfortunately realized that it does not acquire any more redeeming qualities than one may expect from such an illustrious beginning. However, due to the fact that others are reading this discussion, I feel compelled to reply to your "objections."

I have read your 'responses' - if they can be graced by such illustrious terminology, sir, and find your ontokratology severely lacking.

I deny, of course, that I have misrepresented the normative Atris as anything but her own self in my several logics. Zeno's Ponderings, as you pointed out, did show that previous logicians did make this mistake. However, I submit that 1) I have not done so; 2) There is no evidence to suppose that I have done so in this discussion, and 3) Such accusations without evidence are merely ad hominem personal attacks.

Sir, by your own admission, Atris is a woman. The implications in light of Lepsius' Representations are clear. Your attempt to dismiss this as a dialectic category error is in fact a flaw in your own synthetic logicalisation, brought about by your reliance on the work of Numa, I think, and ignoring his dismissal by Harcion. To quote the commentary on the subject written by the Magus of the North,

 

"Honc oino ploirume consentiont Romai; duonoro optimo fuise viro...divum empta cante."

Moreover, your assessment that the spagyron intransitive was a posteriori is clearly false. My argument in that regard was that, in all possible worlds, no Atris could exist while being a Sith. The reasoning for this is clearly not a posteriori, but are in fact a priori, given that normative Sith activities are not in dispute.

Sir, you seem to be lacking an argument here - Sith activities are indeed not in dispute, but a posteriori analytic. Your didactic-synthetic inference here is clearly flawed, being based upon an enchoraic misrepresentation.

 

I do agree that such errors are easily made. But, it is also my opinion that those errors are easily made because they can be confused for real arguments easily. And so in this case; you have confused my p-Atris with an actual error of meaning. I do not (and have not!) stated that p-Atris is equivalent with any particular n-Atris, nor that they should be so equivocated; but rather, there are similarities between the two that are worth looking at, even if we do not consider them to be "the same."

You are, in fact, explicit in misrepresenting n-Atris as p-Atris, throughout your speech sir, and your current rebuttal shows yet more signs of this error. I suspect you have simply misunderstood Pompilli's Cheloniplasty and mistaken z-form hieratic for c-form demotic modalism that is, inevitably ineluctable, but nevertheless prosaically isthmuseionic.

 

You speak of dialectical anhedonics, but then in your own post have confused my own arguments into incoherence? I ask you, sir: what would happen if, e.g., you were to compare vq-Atris to the p-Atris which I have described? I would suggest that there are no detectable differences; and this is because they are indeed the same thing (the noumenal Atris). Quoting Shenzhe-Wan, on this issue: "Many have forgotten the essential simplicity of all things. The distinction between the vq- and p- classes of natural propositions is that they are simply different words for the same thing." [emphasis added]

May I remind you, sir, that vq-classes as were defined by Shezhe-Wan bear no resemblance to the traditional western usage as stative analytic post-fortiori reflexives, being in their stead, passive-infinitival hyssopic pre-priori inductives. As such, the difference between vq- and p-classes in my response is most clear. I suggest you read Finnegan's Ulysses Wake.

 

Thank you for your time,

 

Samuel Dravis

I do look forward to your response.

 

Have a nice day.

[The Source]

Debate:: Atris’s Roll in a Possible “KotOR III?”

Heavy On Spoilers.

 

Welcome to another Sunday ‘KotOR III’ debate! Within tonight’s discussion, we are speculating on a possible Atris involvement in “KotOR III”. As we know from playing “The Sith Lords”, Atris is either killed or allowed to live. If you think about how complex the Expanded Universe has become, Atris’s role may not be over in a long shot. According to Atris’s and Kreia’s conversation on Telos, we find out that our emotionally driven Jedi Master has fallen. “Star Wars: Essentials – Chronology” makes an interesting history note, which revolves around the Sith Civil War. During the event of “KotOR II”, the Sith you do not see are fighting amongst themselves. According to the “Star Wars: Essentials” book, only one Sith Lord survives the events of “KotOR II”. If we go by Kreia’s logic, “…there must always be a Darth Traya.”, we can make the assumption that Atris is the surviving Sith Lord. However, what is the canonized fate of the Exile? If the Eixle is considered to be female, could Kreia’s statement have a double meaning? Could the Eile be the very Sith that survives? Coulf the Exile be Darth Traya in “KotOR III”? In order to come to a possible conclusion, we must answer one question: “Is there a place in “KotOR III”, which Atris as a Dark Lord is involved? Does Darth Traya finally rise?

 

Star Wars Wikipedia – Atris

 

Star Wars Wikipedia – Jedi Exile

 

Second This War

 

“There are many factions within the Sith, each attempting to take what little remains from the Jedi Civil War."

 

Visas Marr’s statement is very interesting. If Atris is the last of the Sith Lord, within the known region, what type of role could she have in “KotOR III”?

 

--------

Lets Hit The Reset Button!

--------

[Rev7]

Potentially, Atris could be the Sith Lord in KotOR III. It could also be the Exile that is the Sith Lord in KotOR III. I personally don't quite know which one could/would be...

 

I guess that it all comes to what is canon. From what I know, it is canon that the Exile is a DS female, and I don't think that it would be that far-fetched that she killed Atris. I don't quite remember though. That isn't what it states on the wookiepedia page. Could someone clarify this?

[The Source]

Potentially, Atris could be the Sith Lord in KotOR III. It could also be the Exile that is the Sith Lord in KotOR III. I personally don't quite know which one could/would be...

 

I guess that it all comes to what is canon. From what I know, it is canon that the Exile is a DS female, and I don't think that it would be that far-fetched that she killed Atris. I don't quite remember though. That isn't what it states on the wookiepedia page. Could someone clarify this?

If you think about how she was left on Telos, the Sith holocrons that are just laying around, I don't think it would have been wise of Exile to just leave that stuff linguring. Atris has allready taken the steps. Maybe she is Exile's apprentice?

[Rev7]

There is a possiblity. However, I am sure that the Exile was in a rush to save the galaxy... I am not disregarding the possiblity though...

[TKA-001]

Atris wasn't a Sith in KOTOR 2, just a Dark Jedi. She didn't even think she was on the dark side, so why would she become a Sith?

[The Source]

There is a possiblity. However, I am sure that the Exile was in a rush to save the galaxy... I am not disregarding the possiblity though...

I'm sure your right. If Lucas Arts descides on the darkside canon female for Exile, the others in your party are also Sith. Atris's Telos enclave could be their training ground. Atris would end up dead. If Lucas Arts chooses the lightside as canon, Atris would be left on Telos going Sith mad. Lol...

 

I cannot ignore the "Star Wars Essentials - Chronology", which places on Sith remaining after the current war.

 

Not part of the debate' date=' but are you sure it said after KOTOR II or after the Sith Civl War? First you said one sith survived after KOTOR II, but your next sentence says after the civil war. and according to Wookiepedia, which people here like to reference, the Exile was female, but not a Sith. In fact, the canon for all Star Wars games is the lightside ending.[/quote']

During the events of "KotOR II", there is a Sih Civil War being waged. Kriea, Sion, and Nhilus are only players in a bigger war. As the events surounding the Exile are being played out, the Sith are fighting over controlling what is left of Malek's -or- Revan's old army.

 

---

I don't think this was an complex quesiton to ask. I am going to let it sit here, and see what others come up with.

---