KOTOR2: Sides don't matter?

thrasher

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2004
40
0
18,530
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

What prompted this post is a comment one of the mercenaries on
Dantoine made. When asked which side of the Mandalorian Wars he fought
on, he says something like" You were a soldier, you know that sides
don't matter." Which makes me say "Hmmmm...." because, while I wasn't
a soldier, I was a Marine, and I don't know anything remotely like
that. I've never heard anybody in teh US military say anything like
that. If a soldier didn't care enough about a cause to care which side
of it he's fighting on, then why is he fighting? How committed would
he be? How much risk would he be willing to take? What would his
morale be like?

There's a name for soldiers like that. Conscripts. There's another
name for soldiers like that. Dead.

And while I love the storyline in KOTOR 2, I've noticed this flaw
throughout the game. Sides really DON'T matter in this game. The story
plays out pretty much the same way no matter which side of any issue
the player takes. The only real difference it makes is whether the
player gains dark side or light side points, and that only matters as
far as what powers the player can use best and how his own party
member NPCs react to him. Nobody *else* seems to notice whether the
player has an angelic halo or if his face is rotting off from darkside
corruption.

But my main issue is teh way they cover the backstory. The writers
seem at once perceptive and naive. They seem to understadn some of the
reasons people go to war, but they display very little understanding
of what motivates people to fight. In the case of this story, the
Mandolorians and the renegade Jedi were both true believers. They
were's fighting because they had nothing better to do, or because
theyw anted power, or any of the other implications made in this game.
They were there because they thought they were right. People don't
fight that hard for any other reason.

No, the writers seem to be associating the political motivations of
governments or other power structures to individual soldiers. That
isn't the way it works. Soldiers are the ultimate believers in a
cause. Good ones are, anyway. Pitting fanatics against cosncripts
yields a one sided battle. The conscipts will die in droves, they will
route, they will surrender, they will desert... they will do anything
except fight. The mandalorian wars were not described that way.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thrasher wrote:
> What prompted this post is a comment one of the mercenaries on
> Dantoine made. When asked which side of the Mandalorian Wars he
fought
> on, he says something like" You were a soldier, you know that sides
> don't matter." Which makes me say "Hmmmm...." because, while I wasn't
> a soldier, I was a Marine, and I don't know anything remotely like
> that. I've never heard anybody in teh US military say anything like
> that. If a soldier didn't care enough about a cause to care which
side
> of it he's fighting on, then why is he fighting? How committed would
> he be? How much risk would he be willing to take? What would his
> morale be like?
>
> There's a name for soldiers like that. Conscripts. There's another
> name for soldiers like that. Dead.
>
> And while I love the storyline in KOTOR 2, I've noticed this flaw
> throughout the game. Sides really DON'T matter in this game. The
story
> plays out pretty much the same way no matter which side of any issue
> the player takes. The only real difference it makes is whether the
> player gains dark side or light side points, and that only matters as
> far as what powers the player can use best and how his own party
> member NPCs react to him. Nobody *else* seems to notice whether the
> player has an angelic halo or if his face is rotting off from
darkside
> corruption.
>
> But my main issue is teh way they cover the backstory. The writers
> seem at once perceptive and naive. They seem to understadn some of
the
> reasons people go to war, but they display very little understanding
> of what motivates people to fight. In the case of this story, the
> Mandolorians and the renegade Jedi were both true believers. They
> were's fighting because they had nothing better to do, or because
> theyw anted power, or any of the other implications made in this
game.
> They were there because they thought they were right. People don't
> fight that hard for any other reason.
>
> No, the writers seem to be associating the political motivations of
> governments or other power structures to individual soldiers. That
> isn't the way it works. Soldiers are the ultimate believers in a
> cause. Good ones are, anyway. Pitting fanatics against cosncripts
> yields a one sided battle. The conscipts will die in droves, they
will
> route, they will surrender, they will desert... they will do anything
> except fight. The mandalorian wars were not described that way.

The wars were over and hindsight is 20/20
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com> writes:

> There's a name for soldiers like that. Conscripts. There's another
> name for soldiers like that. Dead.

How about "mercenary"? There are still plenty of those around on
Earth who don't have any particular loyalty to one side or the
other.

--
Darin Johnson
"You used to be big."
"I am big. It's the pictures that got small."
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net> wrote:
>Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> There's a name for soldiers like that. Conscripts. There's another
>> name for soldiers like that. Dead.
>
>How about "mercenary"? There are still plenty of those around on
>Earth who don't have any particular loyalty to one side or the
>other.

For that matter there are a great number of conscripts.

The attitude Thrasher has a problem with isn't at all unusual. You
see it especially in accounts from World War I, where it was quite
common for the grunts t feel like they had more in common with enemy
soldiers than with the officers on their own side. I don't really see
the issue.

-David
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:11:25 GMT, Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net>
wrote:

>> There's a name for soldiers like that. Conscripts. There's another
>> name for soldiers like that. Dead.
>
>How about "mercenary"?

A mercenary is not a soldier, by definition. However, the other name,
dead, also applies to mercenaries, for the same reasons.

>There are still plenty of those around on Earth who don't have any
>particular loyalty to one side or the other.

Are there? That certainly seems to be a popular myth at least. The
last major conflict I know of that saw widescale use of Mercenaries
was Angola, where they fought unsuccessfully against a 3rd world
militia.

I suspect the reason Mercenaries aren't very popular, and haven't been
since the Middle Ages, is because if they went up against a real
militray, they'd be, well, dead. Dead conscripts are much cheaper
than dead Mercenaries.

But none of this touches upon my comments that in KOTOR 2 they speak
of the Mandalorian Wars as if the individuals involved lacked
committment to their cause, which seems completely contradictory to
the descriptions of both the Mandalorians and the Jedi rebels who were
involved. The main character for instance... he spends the WHOLE GAME
justifying his betrayal of the Jedi to follow Revan to war. If he
didn't care, wouldn't he have stayed on Dantooine?

Nope, I don't buy it. I don't buy it in the back story of this game
and I don't buy it in real life. Nobody _worthy_ of being called a
soldier is so lacking in conviction.
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thrasher <spectre911@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Nope, I don't buy it. I don't buy it in the back story of this game
>and I don't buy it in real life. Nobody _worthy_ of being called a
>soldier is so lacking in conviction.
>

You're ignoring historical reality. As I pointed out in my previous
message, study World War I for a very widespread example of this
phenomenon. This sort of thing depends heavily on a specific,
horrible kind of conflict. The Great War qualifies. In the fictional
world, Malachor V and that war qualifies.

We haven't had such a war in real life in quite a long time.

-David
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

The Iraqi "insurgency" is using mercenaries from all over the world. But it
seems most are Syrian an Chechen.
"Thrasher" <spectre911@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:abs121pn5l5lsg72pi6vb6eet8knp2gqk4@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:11:25 GMT, Darin Johnson <darin_@_usa_._net>
> wrote:
>
> >> There's a name for soldiers like that. Conscripts. There's another
> >> name for soldiers like that. Dead.
> >
> >How about "mercenary"?
>
> A mercenary is not a soldier, by definition. However, the other name,
> dead, also applies to mercenaries, for the same reasons.
>
> >There are still plenty of those around on Earth who don't have any
> >particular loyalty to one side or the other.
>
> Are there? That certainly seems to be a popular myth at least. The
> last major conflict I know of that saw widescale use of Mercenaries
> was Angola, where they fought unsuccessfully against a 3rd world
> militia.
>
> I suspect the reason Mercenaries aren't very popular, and haven't been
> since the Middle Ages, is because if they went up against a real
> militray, they'd be, well, dead. Dead conscripts are much cheaper
> than dead Mercenaries.
>
> But none of this touches upon my comments that in KOTOR 2 they speak
> of the Mandalorian Wars as if the individuals involved lacked
> committment to their cause, which seems completely contradictory to
> the descriptions of both the Mandalorians and the Jedi rebels who were
> involved. The main character for instance... he spends the WHOLE GAME
> justifying his betrayal of the Jedi to follow Revan to war. If he
> didn't care, wouldn't he have stayed on Dantooine?
>
> Nope, I don't buy it. I don't buy it in the back story of this game
> and I don't buy it in real life. Nobody _worthy_ of being called a
> soldier is so lacking in conviction.
>
>
>
>
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thrasher doesn't sound like a soldier AT ALL.

The CIA released a video a few years ago of the American submariners giving
Soviet counterparts a respectful burial at sea after an attempted rescue
because of the kinship that all sailors have, especially submariners, who
consider themselves all part of a fraternity, no matter what the uniform.
And this was in the 1970's at the *height* of the Cold War.

Jonah Falcon
 
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 1 Mar 2005 20:24:17 GMT, i own a yacht <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>Jonah Falcon <jonahnynla@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Thrasher doesn't sound like a soldier AT ALL.
>>
>> The CIA released a video a few years ago of the American submariners giving
>> Soviet counterparts a respectful burial at sea after an attempted rescue
>> because of the kinship that all sailors have, especially submariners, who
>> consider themselves all part of a fraternity, no matter what the uniform.
>> And this was in the 1970's at the *height* of the Cold War.
>
>aww, jonah believes in fairytales.

He's correct, except I believe the incident he refers to was Soviet
bodies recovered by the Glomar Explorer after raising a sunken Soviet
Golf submarine. Not a rescue; they were long dead.

Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com