Which Council Member?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Let's not forget where all this started and could have been averted...

 

The Jedi Civil War was the result of Revan for joining in the Mandalorian Wars. Revan gained most/all his support from going to fight the Mandalorians and the Council refused to get involved. They had ABSOLUTELY no reason to assume they knew better than the rest of the Order, but they pushed the Order to ignore their sense and stressed their authority.

 

The Council's refusal to get involved naturally would have gone against common sense and would likely have caused a Jedi like Revan to go rogue. Even if Revan were the Evil Dark Lord he was painted in the first game, it wouldn't have mattered if he was not allowed the means to gain support if the Council had taken action in the first place. Because they couldn't justify their side of the argument, more Jedi believed in Revan than they did the Council.

[TKA-001]

Let's not forget where all this started and could have been averted...

 

The Jedi Civil War was the result of Revan for joining in the Mandalorian Wars.

Blatant lie #1. The Jedi Civil War was the result of Darth Revan corrupting his Jedi followers and the military personnel under his command to the dark side, followed by an unprovoked attack on the Republic shipyards of Foerost (which was the first battle of the war). Revan began the aforementioned corruption process before the Mandalorian Wars ended.

 

Revan gained most/all his support from going to fight the Mandalorians and the Council refused to get involved.

Ignoratio elenchi (otherwise known as an irrelevant conclusion). What is that supposed to prove? Choosing to join the Republic Military was the only thing he could gain any support from doing at all. It was a yes/no situation.

 

They had ABSOLUTELY no reason to assume they knew better than the rest of the Order, but they pushed the Order to ignore their sense and stressed their authority.

False. The Jedi Council was unwilling to immediately join the war because the Order was still wounded from the Great Sith War with Exar Kun, and they had reason to fear that joining another armed conflict would devastate the Order (which, unsurprisingly, is what resulted). I need not bother to mention that the Council was evaluating the Mandalorian threat (rather than completely ignoring them as you like to insinuate) and also suspected that they were not the real galactic threat.

 

If one is to refuse to believe either of the Council's official reasons, one also has to believe that more than half of the Jedi Order is composed of people who are either mentally retarded or like to collectively be a bunch of *******s for no reason whatsoever (and by extension, one must believe that the writers of the KOTOR series were idiots as well because KOTOR would be as stupid as hell if that was the actual plot of the games).

 

I also notice how you consistently use the words "the Order" and "the rest of the Order" when talking about the supposed "schism" which Revan caused. You are clearly trying to imply that the Council and the Jedi loyalists were far outnumbered by the Crusaders, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

 

The Council's refusal to get involved naturally would have gone against common sense and would likely have caused a Jedi like Revan to go rogue.

You seem to be treating the event of a Jedi leading a faction of the Order to the Mandalorian Wars as having been an inevitability, which is merely unsupported wishful thinking on your part.

 

Even if Revan were the Evil Dark Lord he was painted in the first game

Blatant lie #2. Darth Revan was the evil Dark Lord he was painted as in the first game. If Revan wasn't evil, then neither was Palpatine.

 

Because they couldn't justify their side of the argument

See the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of my post.

 

more Jedi believed in Revan than they did the Council.

Blatant lie #3: More passing off your own fanon/wishful thinking as fact. Nowhere in either KOTOR games is there evidence that the number of Jedi Crusaders/Crusader sympathizers even so much as equaled (let alone outnumbered) the loyalists.

[Astor]

The Jedi Civil War was the result of Revan for joining in the Mandalorian Wars. Revan gained most/all his support from going to fight the Mandalorians and the Council refused to get involved.

 

Myself and TKA have already adressed the point about the Council not getting involved. But, to further reinforce it -

 

Only thirty years earlier, the fallen Knights Exar Kun and Ulic Qel-Droma had successfully led a host of Jedi to the dark side and thence to war with the Jedi Order. The resulting struggle with the Sith took a very heavy toll on the Order and it had yet to fully recover. In the face of a looming Mandalorian threat, the Jedi Masters grew cautious lest they repeat the mistakes of the past; They were wary of the dark side and they sensed that an unknown hand was at work behind the new war.

 

I know it's from wookieepedia, but it phrases the situation better than I can.

 

They had ABSOLUTELY no reason to assume they knew better than the rest of the Order, but they pushed the Order to ignore their sense and stressed their authority.

 

I feel compelled to remind you that Revan had ASBOLUTELY (as you put it) no reason to assume that he knew better than anyone else either.

 

The Council's refusal to get involved naturally would have gone against common sense

 

How, exactly? They had their reasons for not getting involved - others disagreeing with them doesn't mean they aren't using common sense.

 

Because they couldn't justify their side of the argument, more Jedi believed in Revan than they did the Council.

 

"Not destroying what's left of the Order in another bloody war" seems like justification enough.

[Cattpride]

Atris=Hypocrite. Fail.

Vandar=Yoda's species. Win!

[Lord of Hunger]

My Best to Worst:

 

1) Zez-Kia Ell: Only one to take responsibility for anything and to ponder the politically incorrect idea that [heresy]the Jedi aren't all that great[/heresy].

2) Kavar: Believed that the Jedi were right when they were obviously wrong, but was moderate about his convictions and attempted to do what was right.

3) Vash: Rebuked Atris (anyone who rebukes Atris is a decent person in my book ) and since she has so much cut content we don't know enough to really judge you.

4) Zhar: Trusting and friendly, but like most Jedi, wrong about Revan and Malak.

5) Dorak: Same as Zhar.

6) Vandar: Useless.

7) Vrook: Hypocrite. His ideology is against hatred and yet he has an intense hatred of any "Dark Siders". At least he's though to kill.

8) Atris: Traitor. She sells out everyone, including herself, to a bunch of Sith Holocrons. If I didn't play LS all the time I'd finish her off or leave her to the Holocrons.

[Bee Hoon]

Wow, this thread is clearly srs bsns. I'm sorry for flogging a dead horse, but heck. It's very late here, so excuse any incoherence.

 

Atris is a very well-written character. On first glance, she's nothing more than an arrogant, selfish hag who is just there to annoy the Exile. But the important thing to remember about her is that she genuinely believed that she was doing the right thing. She's the perfect example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. She leaked word of the conclave at Katarr, hoping that the Sith would show their hand, but obviously that backfired.

 

During the events of TSL, she thought herself to be the last of the Jedi (which was not far from the truth), and she devoted herself to a single cause: ensuring that the Jedi survived. She had fallen long before that, or to be more precise, begun her slow descent. It wasn't one impetuous act that damned her. If not for Kreia opening her eyes to her own darkness, Atris probably would have carried on in the same vein.

 

So while I like Kavar best for being the most reasonable Council member, Atris is by far the most complex.

[Adavardes]

So while I like Kavar best for being the most reasonable Council member, Atris is by far the most complex.

 

Indeed, the most complex, if not a bit predictable. Actually, very predictable.

 

My vote goes for Zez-Kai Ell. His intellect and perceptiveness lead him to the conclusion that the Jedi way, or the Jedi methodology, most likely lead to the creation of the Sith, and that the masters were singularly responsible for the corruption of their pupils simply because they taught something that was too strict. The Jedi way may have helped force users conquer darker impulses, but it also put too much strain on natural human emotions that are not necessarily catalysts for evil, choosing to neglect them instead of face and conquer them.

 

This lead to their complete repudiation of any paths to salvation that may have required risks or sacrifices to the dark side, such as involvement in the Mandalorian Wars, and the subsequent war caused by Revan to ultimately strengthen the Republic against a much more dangerous threat. Because they refused to try other methods, electing to remain strict and ignorant other options, they perished, and their students turned from them. Zez-Kai Ell was possibly the first Master to see this, and the resulting internal conflict made for fantastic story.

[Endorenna]

Atris is a very well-written character. On first glance, she's nothing more than an arrogant, selfish hag who is just there to annoy the Exile. But the important thing to remember about her is that she genuinely believed that she was doing the right thing. She's the perfect example of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. She leaked word of the conclave at Katarr, hoping that the Sith would show their hand, but obviously that backfired.

 

Quite true. She's a very complex character. Just makes me hate her all the more.

[TKA-001]

Atris is one of the examples I refer to when I say that whether the player character would like a character has no bearing on the quality of said character.

[Adavardes]

But, like I said, my qualms with her are not whether or not she's complex or whether or not I like her. It's that she's bland and predictable. I mean, she has tons of depth, but the depth is something we've seen many times before, righteous anger, self-importance, barely-contained love for someone who is forbidden. She's not simple in character structure, but the structure itself is plain, and you can see exactly where it's going. She's just not an emotionally moving character, she doesn't surprise me or stimulate me.

[Kjølen]

I liked Zhar because he taught you (Revan) much on your return to Dantooine and in my opinion, by Twi'lek male standards, he wasn't a total slimeball. I guess I'm prejudiced against male Twi'leks that way, but Zhar was probably one of the kindest and more mild of the Dantooine Council members.

[Jeff]

I think Kavar is a pretty cool guy, eh does debates and doesn't afraid of anything. But really, I probably liked Kavar the best just because he seemed the most helpful to you and wasn't always condescending.

[Darth Avlectus]

I see myself personally as a weaponsmanster since I am already a swordsman in real life. However, on a personality level...I am like master Vrook only a bit more creative and at least I try to be 'kind of' likable. I'd imagine I would probably agree with him 1/4 the time, 1/2 of the time indifferent, and the last 1/4 I'd want to rip his ****ing head off and **** down his neck. I'd have my own ideas.

 

I guess I'd jive with his mentality of competence. Strong and capable. His high standards is something everyone ought to strive for. Even if we don't see eye to eye.

[TheJedi76]

Okay, pink Twi'leks!

 

That's one reason that I chose him, the other, I don't entirely know why.

 

Zhar is sweet.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I guess I'm surprised that there are so many who voted for the 'faceless' masters as I come to view them. Zhar, Vandar, Vash, and Dorak are all really lacking in character or personality to a great extent. Although the restored content would have given you a chance to interact with Vash, so I see why she got votes. Vandar just reminds people of Yoda, I think. Zhar and Dorak are alright, but barely any personality at all.

 

Atris/Vrook condescending/arrogant and evil/cruel

 

Kavar/ZKE/Vash these are the only Masters who really didn't become too overconfident to think they were above making mistakes. That's why they were the only likable Masters in the game.

[TKA-001]

I keep forgetting where Vrook does anything cruel to anyone, or where Atris does anything evil before the events of KotOR 2.

[TheJedi76]

I keep forgetting where Vrook does anything cruel to anyone,

 

 

Vrook's just a complete dick.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I keep forgetting where Vrook does anything cruel to anyone, or where Atris does anything evil before the events of KotOR 2.

 

Let's see, Vrook wanted nothing more than to punish the Exile not once, but twice condemning her, despite doing what the Council was too afraid to do. He went against his subordinates for doing what they thought was right instead of realizing that he and the Council were the fuel instigating Revan's rise to power. After refusing to acknowledge his fault, he yet again kept shifting blame away from himself and the Council. He doesn't follow the Jedi code... always such an angry... so biassed... so prejudicial... need I go on?

 

Atris: Katarr? Mass murderer before KOTOR II. Only thing that could have redeemed her would have been to go to Katarr and die with the others.

[TKA-001]

Let's see, Vrook wanted nothing more than to punish the Exile not once, but twice condemning her, despite doing what the Council was too afraid to do.

More irrelevant filler about how brave the Exile was compared to the evil meany Jedi Council, and how unfair Vrook was to every character that you like, ignoring any reasons he had for his behavior other than your made-up ones about fear and pettiness and "unjustified" condemnation. You are attempting to outright demonize this character, and you bend the facts in order to do so.

 

He went against his subordinates for doing what they thought was right instead of realizing that he and the Council were the fuel instigating Revan's rise to power.

How many times do we need to go over this? Revan chose to lead the Crusaders in the war, Revan chose to turn them to the dark side, and Revan chose to start the Jedi Civil War. Vrook, and for that matter, everyone else on the Council as well, were just another element of the situation; They didn't control Revan's actions or "force his hand". I suppose you think the Destruction of Malachor V was the Council's fault as well, because they "left Revan no choice".

 

After refusing to acknowledge his fault, he yet again kept shifting blame away from himself and the Council.

What is so contemptible about a person believing that they're right and not thinking that they're to blame? Everybody does that (this goes without saying, but "everybody" includes the great and noble Sir Revan and Sir Exile). Nobody does something willingly if they don't think that they're right. Vrook doesn't acknowledge any fault because he doesn't believe he was wrong (nor was he, because his suspicions of Revan and the Exile were both justified in all cases). Why are some characters immune to the corruption brought on by thinking that they're right, but Vrook isn't?

 

He doesn't follow the Jedi code... always such an angry... so biassed... so prejudicial... need I go on?

No, you don't need to go on, because you somehow managed to write an entire paragraph without actually listing a single cruel or immoral thing that Vrook does (I've read your fan fiction. Are you sure you're looking at the game, instead of that?). I can only assume that the reason for this is that to you, staying true to one's beliefs and standing up for what one believes is right regardless of the opposition (a virtue that you ironically apply so thickly with praise to Revan and the Exile) translates to "anger, bias, prejudice, and hypocrisy," as long as the character in question disagrees with Revan and the Exile, of course, because they are never wrong.

 

Atris: Katarr? Mass murderer before KOTOR II. Only thing that could have redeemed her would have been to go to Katarr and die with the others.

Atris called the meeting in order to draw Nihilus to Katarr, so that the Jedi could kill him, not the other way around. While it is true that making this move without telling anyone and without knowing more about Nihilus was reckless and dangerous (as the result proved), Atris was not personally responsible for the destruction of Katarr any more than the other Jedi (Vandar, Zhar, etcetera) at the planet were. Despite the flaws of the plan, her intentions did not in any way involve "mass murder", as you spitefully put it, and she neither gave the order, nor pulled the trigger (figuratively or literally).

 

Ooh, here's an interesting comparison. Atris arranged for the meeting on Katarr because she thought that the risks were justified because it was the only known way to stop a horrendously evil, unknown threat and the other Jedi wouldn't approve of her methods... Exactly like Kreia's justification for every evil thing Revan does. I wonder what makes the two different, other than one of them happening to be the player character.

[Darth InSidious]

Vrook's awesome.

 

All the complaints about him boil down to "BAWWWWW he didn't stroke my ego ergo he suxxxx!!!!!!!" They can't even be called criticisms.

 

He's the only one to tell it like it is.

[Adavardes]

Vrook's awesome.

 

All the complaints about him boil down to "BAWWWWW he didn't stroke my ego ergo he suxxxx!!!!!!!" They can't even be called criticisms.

 

He's the only one to tell it like it is.

 

You mean his sanctimonious, arrogant, narrow-minded perspective that just seems like he's "telling it like it is" because he's being an ******* about it, which easily fools people who think wordy ******* = infallible prophet.

 

The practice of the Jedi code had always been too restrictive, which is why so many Jedi fell to the dark side. But he could never see that, in fact, he refused to see that. That not only makes him ignorant of his own faults, but completely incompetent when it comes to understanding anything about the subtleties of the Force. To assume that he's somehow awesome for standing firm on what he believes in implies that the Jedi way is somehow the perfect philosophy for Force Users. It isn't, and was almost an anti-thesis to such attitudes, and that was made painfully clear in K2.

[TKA-001]

The practice of the Jedi code had always been too restrictive, which is why so many Jedi fell to the dark side. But he could never see that, in fact, he refused to see that.

The first rule of a Jedi critic is when you can't actually find anything to criticize, just pick "the Jedi code" and talk about it like it's a multi-thousand page-long book of rules, and hope that nobody will notice that the Jedi code is just a five-line-long set of guidelines (or that "the Jedi code" or whatever you want to call it/them doesn't have jack to do with the discussion).

 

You mean his sanctimonious, arrogant, narrow-minded perspective that just seems like he's "telling it like it is" because he's being an ******* about it, which easily fools people who think wordy ******* = infallible prophet.

Irrelevant trash talk, which can't even be called criticism.

 

That not only makes him ignorant of his own faults, but completely incompetent when it comes to understanding anything about the subtleties of the Force. To assume that he's somehow awesome for standing firm on what he believes in implies that the Jedi way is somehow the perfect philosophy for Force Users. It isn't, and was almost an anti-thesis to such attitudes, and that was made painfully clear in K2.

Strange how your rule above doesn't apply here. This paragraph was very wordy and had no substance or point (since it didn't cite a single example from anywhere of Vrook's faults other than you not liking him), but was clearly meant to be taken as correct.

[Adavardes]

The first rule of a Jedi critic is when you can't actually find anything to criticize, just pick "the Jedi code" and talk about it like it's a multi-thousand page-long book of rules, and hope that nobody will notice that the Jedi code is just a five-line-long set of guidelines (or that "the Jedi code" doesn't have jack to do with the discussion).

 

Actually, I said that the way the Jedi carried out the code was the main fault to be found with the Jedi Order. They were too strict, to narrow-minded, too dismissive. They held high standards, but there's a limit between setting high standards and expecting sentient emotion to just disappear. Eventually, someone's going to fall in love, and the love isn't really the problem, it's the loss of love that leads to darker emotions, but they never adapted or grew to either conquer this issue, or to accept it and work with it to make sure Jedi remained Jedi, and didn't fall to the dark side. They just let them fall and ignored the problem. They tried to make natural feelings go away, and create an unnaturally perfect warrior. It can't be done, sentients thrive off of imperfection, but the Jedi Order refused to see that, and instead of applying the code to hone and diminish the presence of powerful emotions, they attempted to either annihilate them from their pupils completely, or otherwise ignored them and cast them out as punishment. And this has everything to do with the discussion, as Vrook was a very by-the-book, follow the Code sort of Jedi, who condemned emotion to the dark side this very same way.

 

Irrelevant trash talk, which can't even be called criticism.

 

Actually, it's pretty much indicative of Vrook's attitude, and you dismiss it because, ironically enough, you set Vrook on a pedestal, and anyone else who criticises him is just "demonising the character". Vrook is sanctimonious, impulsive, chastising when it's unnecessary, overly critical, and close-minded to the thought of problems within his Order. He was the perfect example of why the Jedi Order had fallen apart and died.

 

When the Sith were at his doorstep a second time when the Exile came to him, what did he say he would do? What he had done the first time, though he knew what had happened because of it. Wait, and play the role of pacifist, even though his help is needed, so he can once again condemn others for "rushing into battle". Seems to me like he just expected problems to go away. When you speak with Kavar, he says that he was looking for you on Onderon, but that Vrook hadn't wanted to place any value on what you could teach them. When you face them a final time, Vrook's the one that condemns you to the final punishment of being cut off from the Force, instead of learning from you. Dismissive, anyone?

 

Strange how your rule above doesn't apply here. This paragraph was very wordy and had no substance or point (since it didn't cite a single example from anywhere), but was clearly meant to be taken as correct.

 

Again, dismissing the argument. And citing sources really seems to be an empty excuse to ignore my argument.

[TKA-001]

Vrook was a very by-the-book, follow the Code sort of Jedi, who condemned emotion to the dark side this very same way.

When/where did he say or do that?

 

Actually, it's pretty much indicative of Vrook's attitude, and you dismiss it because, ironically enough, you set Vrook on a pedestal, and anyone else who criticises him is just "demonising the character".

Saying that I put Vrook on a pedestal is a strawman argument. Where and how did I make any such implications? Where do I praise him to that level? Vrook is a standard and unremarkable Jedi, only notable because the Revan/Exile fanbase criticizes him more than the characters in the same series who are responsible for mass murder and/or genocide.

 

I never accused you of demonizing Vrook. I accused Yuthura, because unlike with your post (which actually draws from the topic material somewhat), hers/his was based on outright lies, as usual.

 

Vrook is sanctimonious, impulsive, chastising when it's unnecessary, overly critical, and

All but the second adjectives of this quotation are examples of the Style over Substance fallacy. Essentially, what you're saying is that the manner in which Vrook talks somehow affects the truth of what he says and believes. Also, what things does Vrook do that are impulsive?

 

When the Sith were at his doorstep a second time when the Exile came to him, what did he say he would do? What he had done the first time, though he knew what had happened because of it. Wait, and play the role of pacifist, even though his help is needed, so he can once again condemn others for "rushing into battle". Seems to me like he just expected problems to go away.

When the Exile talks to the three Jedi Masters on Dantooine, Vrook says this:

 

We have been trying... for years [to find this threat], without success.

We [hid because we] thought the enemy might show themselves. They were Sith, that much was certain.

If Jedi gather [...] then Jedi will die, and we will die for nothing.

 

What happened when the Jedi gathered at Katarr to figure out the Sith threat? They were killed by the Sith, along with everything else on the planet they met on. What happened to the three Jedi less than ten minutes after they gathered on Dantooine? They were killed by the Sith, exactly like they said would happen. They weren't hiding because they didn't want to do anything, they hid because not hiding would be suicide.

 

When you speak with Kavar, he says that he was looking for you on Onderon, but that Vrook hadn't wanted to place any value on what you could teach them.

When and where does Kavar say that he was looking for the Exile on Onderon, and when/where does he say anything about Vrook's opinion of the Exile? As far as I can recollect, he was sitting in the Onderon palace dealing with political events (or whatever his job/position there was).

 

When you face them a final time, Vrook's the one that condemns you to the final punishment of being cut off from the Force, instead of learning from you.

Please elaborate on what could've been learned from the Exile, or at the very least, what that actually means.

 

Again, dismissing the argument. And citing sources really seems to be an empty excuse to ignore my argument.

Are you ****ting me? How can you even make an argument without citing evidence from the material that is being discussed?

[Darth_Yuthura]

More irrelevant filler about how brave the Exile was compared to the evil meany Jedi Council, and how unfair Vrook was to every character that you like, ignoring any reasons he had for his behavior other than your made-up ones about fear and pettiness and "unjustified" condemnation. You are attempting to outright demonize this character, and you bend the facts in order to do so.

 

Who exactly were the leaders of the Jedi Order? Revan? The Exile? Malak? It was the Council who had the power to act and it was under their leadership that the Galaxy went to hell. That cannot be denied. It doesn't matter whether or not the Exile and her allies were right or wrong; they didn't have the power to do anything, the Council did... and even then they failed.

 

Am I glorifying Revan and the Exile all the time? Probably, but according to the official version of the KOTOR universe, it is Revan and the Exile who were the heros and the Council... maybe weren't evil, but indifferent to anything other than what they believed was wrong. It can't be denied that they condemned the Exile to shift blame away from themselves, and when they had a chance to do the right thing, they were arrogant and condemned her yet again. (they had reason the second time, but were too quick to come to an easy solution.)

 

Vrook probably was a great Jedi, but was more arrogant than anything. Atris was like Vrook, only incompetent. Has there EVER been a time when Vrook admitted that he or the Council were wrong? (He did once say 'we, the Jedi' but this put him as one among many... compared to him ruling above thousands with supreme authority) I would think that one like Vrook would have been the first to admit his failure, but instead, he died thinking it was everyone else because they didn't do what he wanted. If they had, maybe the Jedi Civil war wouldn't have happened, but maybe if he yielded to the rest of the Order, Revan never would have established a banner under which to gather followers.

 

Who should the Jedi have supported? Vrook LOVED blaming Revan and his followers for everything... even when the Council should have been able to deal with ONE rogue Jedi. Under the Council's leadership, the entire Order went all to hell. Did Vrook or Atris EVER take responsibility for their bad leadership? They WERE the ones commanding the Order with a totalitarian authority and under their leadership, the Order was destroyed. Why would anyone support people who disregarded everyone else's opinions?

 

Were they right? Were they the best ones to lead? Well they can't deny that they failed to lead the Order when they faced the Mandalorians and Revan. The Mandalorians were a severe threat and Revan established his base of power solely because of the choices the Council made. Either Revan were a god, or the Council had to have been utterly incompetent... and shouldn't have been leading in the first place.

 

As for Atris... there is NO justification for what she did with Katarr. She betrayed the Jedi and the massacre wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for her. Her motives are quite apparent considering that she went to... wait DIDN'T go to Katarr to face the threat when she sold the Order out. That means that Atris couldn't possibly justify her traitorous actions because she didn't want to face the threat, but was more than willing to make others do it for her.

 

Atris was evil, Vrook simply believed himself perfect and acted as though he were... unwilling to compromise. THAT is why he failed miserably as a leader.