|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
I guess if you only look at the Sith Faction as ideological, than the NUMEROUS empires and organizations (Banites pretty much), then you have an arguement. But then, you should only have Sith Lords in the faction. Naga's Golden Age Empire, Exar & Ulic's armies, Revan's Empire, Kaan's Brotherhood, Bane's Rule of Two hidden in the shadows, and the One Sith, pretty much all except the Banites were more than the Sith Lords. Neither Vader nor Dooku fit in with either, since they were Banites out in the open, serving a different faction. Simplified: Factions are not just idealogical.
No one is argueing that Vader is not a Sith Lord. But the thing is, the Sith faction isn't where all the Sith Lords are supposed to go. Rob made a call for a piece that was going to be terrible in a lot of the current factions. Caedus fighting with Mara Jade makes about as much sense as him fighting with Malak.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/20/2010
Posts: 109
|
Maybe Palpatine was a dissident of the regular Sith ideology. Other Sith Lords had made changes, so why when he learns the arts, can't he decided not to follow the strict code of the Sith, and instead fashion his Empire in his own likeness, the Galactic Empire. While his mastery of the dark side of the force may have its roots in Sith teachings, it doesn't mean that he automatically became a Sith. Anakin Skywalker and Dooku were Jedi. Dooku was not a Sith Lord, he was simply a disillusioned Jedi. Anakin bears the title of Sith Lord, with all his formal training coming from the Jedi, unlike Maul who was trained exclusively by Palpatine. Should there be an Asajj Ventress Sith? Again, I reiterate, the Sith were supposed to be the dark side faction to the old republic era light side faction. There simply is no other place to put Caedus, Krayt, and Talon, and a without creating a whole faction of support characters around them, have no real place to go.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/29/2009
Posts: 496
Location: Nebraska
|
Sithborg: Are Banites the people who followed Darth Bane? I've never seen that one before but it's a pretty efficient term, although I had no idea at first what the heck you were talking about lol.
@Deaths_Baine
How can adherence to Republican form of government not be an idealogy? Like Obi-Wan said "My allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy!"
It is completely indefensible to say that the Sith from Revan to Krayt are more united in idealogy than the Republic at the time of Carth and at the time of Anakin (because for one, it's the SAME Republic!)
Usage of the Dark Side doesn't make one automatically a Sith either, I don't recommend mixing the two up.
Somehow Sith Lord has been equated with Sith faction, era regardless, while being a military officer in service of the Republic is restricted only to the faction's original era of representation, even though the Republic is more united in idealogy than the many, many iterations of the Sith.
"You cannot say that well, if you can have sith from way into the future in the sith faction, then you can have people from the new republic in the old republic, because they are completely different things."
So Krayt's sith and Revan's Sith are the same?
The NR and OR have much more in common than Krayt's and Revan's Sith have in common.
There's more to it than a name.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Rikalonius wrote:Dooku was not a Sith Lord, he was simply a disillusioned Jedi. From wookieepedia: "Dooku was a Jedi Master who fell to the dark side of the Force and became the Dark Lord of the Sith, known as Darth Tyranus."
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 9/20/2010
Posts: 109
|
America's Republic is rooted in the ideology of the Roman Republic, but they are different. Is France the same as it was during the time of the Francs? Also, I always hated the line from Obi Wan, but as unrepentant SW fanboy as I am, GL is a bad writer. A Republic is not a Democracy. Something the people of this day and age has trouble fathoming. A republic implies that representatives can, legally, make decisions against the majority opinion. Our Republic has changed quite a bit since our Founders (for those of you who are Americans) founded it. Why should the Republic not change in 4000 years. FlyingArrow wrote:Rikalonius wrote:Dooku was not a Sith Lord, he was simply a disillusioned Jedi. From wookieepedia: "Dooku was a Jedi Master who fell to the dark side of the Force and became the Dark Lord of the Sith, known as Darth Tyranus." Then Tyranus should be relabled Sith and not Sep then, yes?
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Motti (and others),
Your argument really is with WotC. They're the ones who changed the Sith faction into something that is not tied to any particular era.
Any argument about an OR Anakin has nothing to do with the discussion about a Sith Vader because OR, Republic, Rebel and NR are still tied to specific eras. I could see an argument for an OR Yoda since he's old enough that he could have been active in what we'd call OR. I'm not sure where the dividing line for OR/Republic would be, but clearly anything in episodes I-III would be Republic. I'd argue that at least 50-100 years before that would also qualify as Republic.
There is no similar era for Sith - WotC erased it. Maybe Caedus, Krayt, etc wouldn't have fit in any other faction - they could have been put in a brand new faction or put in Fringe (the catch-all), possibly with a special ability to restrict them from going into some factions. But they didn't do that - instead they redefined the Sith faction. Not saying it was the best move, but that's what happened. And now the Sith faction is wide open to having a Sith Vader, Sith Dooku, etc. Someone raised the point about Vader being a better fit in the Empire - of course he is! This was never an either/or discussion. I still don't care either way if a Sith Vader gets made, but I also haven't seen any argument against a Sith Vader that doesn't boil down to a disagreement with what WotC did to the Sith faction (despite the valiant attempts to draw a distinction between Vader and the other Sith Lords from later eras).
(Incidentally, any non-unique military personnel that would be present in both the OR era and Republic era should in fact have Affinity for both - see Antarian Rangers for example.)
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
Rikalonius wrote:Then Tyranus should be relabled Sith and not Sep then, yes? Not re-labeled, but the case for a Sith Tyranus is exactly the same as the case for a Sith Vader. Again, it's not an either/or question. You could have versions for both factions or have a piece with Affinity.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
FlyingArrow wrote:
There is no similar era for Sith - WotC erased it. Maybe Caedus, Krayt, etc wouldn't have fit in any other faction - they could have been put in a brand new faction or put in Fringe (the catch-all), possibly with a special ability to restrict them from going into some factions. But they didn't do that - instead they redefined the Sith faction. Not saying it was the best move, but that's what happened. And now the Sith faction is wide open to having a Sith Vader, Sith Dooku, etc.
Interesting thought, but I must disagree. Draw yourself a time line and place all the Sith characters on it. Do you notice any eras of missing characters? Are there any outliers in the eras? You might notice, WotC never put Vader or Dooku in the Sith faction, and I don't believe they were ever going to. The classic evidence is that they made 2, count them 2 Anakin's from the 15 minutes of his fall until the creation of the Empire, and neither was made Sith or with Sith affinity. They also made multiple Dooku's and Darth Tyranus, again, with no Sith representation. They did however put Maul and Sidious in the Sith faction. Did they make any of the Dookus or Anakins after those two were made? Yep, sure did, and they were not made for the Sith. When you do the time line, there is one major outlier - Lumiya, but otherwise the Sep and Imp eras are completely devoid of Sith representation. WotC did in fact define Sith as the OR enemy, and then lacking a better place and recognizing the community hatred of a new LotF set of factions, decided to go best fit with those factions. The only argument this supports Vader as a Sith is based on a very low level archetypal slippery slope that doing example A automatically means that example X eventually must also be done. Slippery slope arguments are often convincing rhetoric, but seldom rationally connected. There is no reason that Vader should be in the Sith faction, outside of a very banal level of him being a "Sith" and all "Sith" belong in the "Sith Faction" of our game rules. That's it, that's the end of the debate for some people on here. I choose not to go to the lowest common denominator and understand that nuance is possible, and that the world of SWMs factions are not black and white. It's always been a best fit scenario, and some figures just do not fit the restrictive system necessary to make a "simple" game. I remember comments about Darth Cadeous and the LotF figures where Rob hinted that the reason for inclusion in the Sith were because he didn't want to further expand the factions, and this was the best place of the choices available. I'm not saying we couldn't make a Sith Vader or Dooku, of course we could, and some people would like it. What I'm saying is that there is no reason to because they have a much better faction location - unlike any of the other examples you all bring up to make the argument that Sith was meant to be everyone from every time. Unless you also contend that Rob intended to include all Sith from every time in the Sith faction, you have a very weak case here. Again, visualize the time line. A further point is this. When in real time was the Sith faction created? How many Vaders and Dookus were made without Sith affinity after that moment that did not get it? If you don't know, the Sith faction began in the spring of 2006 with CotF. We had like 10 sets and numerous other products since that time. Now, you could argue (as is being done in this thread that this changed with LotF. Ok, when was LotF made? How many Vaders and Dookus were made after that point in time? LotF was the spring of 2008 I believe, and we had 5-6 sets since then - including your most blasteding point of evidence - "Darth Vader Sith Apprentice". The evidence clearly does not support that WotC intended to ever make a Vader or Dooku for the Sith faction - so make your claims based on something else. Just because you "can" do something does not mean that you "should" do something. In my opinion, Sith Vader or Sith Dooku is wrong and the game doesn't need it or want it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 990
|
Firstly, this was a good disscusion until about a page ago then it got waaaaaay too serious!
There is not an argument! There never was an argument and there never will be an argument unless people go looking for it.
We know Vader is a Sith lord because he fell to the Dark Side as a Dark Jedi, We know Dooku was a Sith Lord because he did exactly the same thing.
The point 'point' that was brought up was should the Dark Lodrd of the Sith Darth Vader be in the sith faction?
For the progression of the game and character development, I say yes. He is imp but yawn, how much more can he give?
Imps are broken along with the rest of the factions. WE should be on Imperial Remenent now!
People said no to Vader with out any reason other than no.
So people gave reasons.
People counter those reasons because tjhose reason had a counter and then they were countered again, yadayadayadaya.
People brought up valid reasons on both sides.
Then people got frantic!!
This was and I'll make blasted well sure still is a light hearted discussion, if your are taking it seriously, JUMP OFF.
The main reason we wont get a Sih Vader is because people are saying no, end of!
The decision has been already stated as being made!! The first statement!
I personaly think its more accurate and creative to make him Sith but then again I dont play official DC gaming rules.
Do I see the factions as name only? Nope as see them as follows.
I see OR, Republic, New Republic as time lines.
Rebels V Imperials.
Mandos and Vong as interesting and great, but defintly tricky to work with.
Fringe as "erm where should these guys live" and the strange glue that allows you to build crazy squads "mash up squads"
And every relevent Sith Lord, Master, trooper disciple and aunties parrot once removed of Malak who has bearing as a sith in the Sith Faction.
And you've got affinity that gives us wonderous choices!!
Whats missing? Jedi? Probably yes! Chiss? Yep this died a death, and every now and then the muscles twitch to make you think its still ticking.
Is this wrong? Nope in fact its probably the freshest way too look at it, but thats just mo. Its the way the game was made. Each faction can be viewed as broken because you can count 2 or more character that are in and should not be in or are not in them at all. Was this not the reason the V-ses were propsed? To continue the game, by correcting errors, introducing new and better/alternate versions of current characters, being creative in away wtoc could never be by being abkle to be faithful, keeping things moving foreward and keeping Star Wars minis alive?
We can speculate now if Wizards would or would not have made SIth Vader as much as we like, they are dead as fried chicken so we will never know. Regarding a community hatred towards LOTF I must have missed that. Champion, Lotf and Kotor were for me some of the best.
On the "banal" level of him being sith, i think you're viewing that with an extremely limited view. This is not meant as offensive but for you to say that people view it as simply as you say may come across as insulting to people who think there should be a Sith version of him.
I dont see him as restricted to Imps, nor do numerous others.
On the evidence that that WOTc were not going to make a sith Vader/dooku thats all hypothetical and not relevent.
Sidious was a dark lord of the Sith way before he was put in the sith faction.
Why were there so many vader and dookus in their affiliate factions? Because they hadnt got round to the next model yet or because they knew they were running out of time with the game rights so quickly bashed out 4 more sets before they died? We wont ever know, so again its not relevent to this discussion.
And in regards to a none Imp Luke??? He was an integral part of Palps unltimate downfall in the star wars time line!!! Not to make one would mean not following any time lines at all.
Vader in a sith faction, I've stated valid reasons why he should be, from the "he is Sith so Duuuh" reason to the game faction reason and ultimatly game growth and game progression reason, which is at the end what we all want.
I hate the F*^&ing term so sorry for say it, but here goes...
"You can't move forward without Forward thinking"
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2009
Posts: 518
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
|
OK, but if you get Sith Vader, I want my Imperial Senator Leia Organa  I really agree with what Dean and Bill said on the SHNN, that whatever stuff you put onto a Sith Vader, I'd rather see that stuff put on a new character, like a Wyrlock or a Stryfe, or on a redo of a bad mini like Nihlius. That is, to me far more interesting. Like I've previously said, the 'Vaders' that I would have been able to stomach as Sith fig were already made, and they're Imperials.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator, Rules Guy
Joined: 8/24/2008
Posts: 5,201
|
CerousMutor wrote:Why were there so many vader and dookus in their affiliate factions? Because they hadnt got round to the next model yet or because they knew they were running out of time with the game rights so quickly bashed out 4 more sets before they died? We wont ever know, so again its not relevent to this discussion. That's pretty much wrong. While we won't ever know when the actual decision was made, I think it is safe to say that the decision was made when Rob left and Peter Lee was brought on board to finish the game. So, pretty much only 2 sets to finish up when the decision was made. Which had the Sith Ani with the same subtitle of the Sith faction Maul. I really doubt that they would've made a Sith Vader or Dooku anytime soon. And let's drop the hyperbole. This has been a fairly good discussion.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/12/2010
Posts: 564
|
CerousMutor wrote:Firstly, this was a good disscusion until about a page ago then it got waaaaaay too serious!
There is not an argument! There never was an argument and there never will be an argument unless people go looking for it.
We know Vader is a Sith lord because he fell to the Dark Side as a Dark Jedi, We know Dooku was a Sith Lord because he did exactly the same thing.
The point 'point' that was brought up was should the Dark Lodrd of the Sith Darth Vader be in the sith faction?
For the progression of the game and character development, I say yes. He is imp but yawn, how much more can he give?
Imps are broken along with the rest of the factions. WE should be on Imperial Remenent now!
People said no to Vader with out any reason other than no.
So people gave reasons.
People counter those reasons because tjhose reason had a counter and then they were countered again, yadayadayadaya.
People brought up valid reasons on both sides.
Then people got frantic!!
This was and I'll make blasted well sure still is a light hearted discussion, if your are taking it seriously, JUMP OFF.
The main reason we wont get a Sih Vader is because people are saying no, end of!
The decision has been already stated as being made!! The first statement!
I personaly think its more accurate and creative to make him Sith but then again I dont play official DC gaming rules.
Do I see the factions as name only? Nope as see them as follows.
I see OR, Republic, New Republic as time lines.
Rebels V Imperials.
Mandos and Vong as interesting and great, but defintly tricky to work with.
Fringe as "erm where should these guys live" and the strange glue that allows you to build crazy squads "mash up squads"
And every relevent Sith Lord, Master, trooper disciple and aunties parrot once removed of Malak who has bearing as a sith in the Sith Faction.
And you've got affinity that gives us wonderous choices!!
Whats missing? Jedi? Probably yes! Chiss? Yep this died a death, and every now and then the muscles twitch to make you think its still ticking.
Is this wrong? Nope in fact its probably the freshest way too look at it, but thats just mo. Its the way the game was made. Each faction can be viewed as broken because you can count 2 or more character that are in and should not be in or are not in them at all. Was this not the reason the V-ses were propsed? To continue the game, by correcting errors, introducing new and better/alternate versions of current characters, being creative in away wtoc could never be by being abkle to be faithful, keeping things moving foreward and keeping Star Wars minis alive?
We can speculate now if Wizards would or would not have made SIth Vader as much as we like, they are dead as fried chicken so we will never know. Regarding a community hatred towards LOTF I must have missed that. Champion, Lotf and Kotor were for me some of the best.
On the "banal" level of him being sith, i think you're viewing that with an extremely limited view. This is not meant as offensive but for you to say that people view it as simply as you say may come across as insulting to people who think there should be a Sith version of him.
I dont see him as restricted to Imps, nor do numerous others.
On the evidence that that WOTc were not going to make a sith Vader/dooku thats all hypothetical and not relevent.
Sidious was a dark lord of the Sith way before he was put in the sith faction.
Why were there so many vader and dookus in their affiliate factions? Because they hadnt got round to the next model yet or because they knew they were running out of time with the game rights so quickly bashed out 4 more sets before they died? We wont ever know, so again its not relevent to this discussion.
And in regards to a none Imp Luke??? He was an integral part of Palps unltimate downfall in the star wars time line!!! Not to make one would mean not following any time lines at all.
Vader in a sith faction, I've stated valid reasons why he should be, from the "he is Sith so Duuuh" reason to the game faction reason and ultimatly game growth and game progression reason, which is at the end what we all want.
I hate the F*^&ing term so sorry for say it, but here goes...
"You can't move forward without Forward thinking" +1 This sums up a lot of my feelings. Great post.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 990
|
Lol did I write that?!!  3/4's of a bottle of single barrel jack and little sleep do odd things. good fun though and an interesting topic none the less.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/29/2009
Posts: 496
Location: Nebraska
|
Do the Sith need competitivity help that only Vader, Dooku, or Palpatine can provide?
No. With the V-sets, we are getting plenty of characters that WotC might have been commercially unwilling to produce.
Will adding Vader to the faction make the faction more cohesive from an Era or Ideaology standpoint?
No. It will add a new era, with a character that doesn't have a terribly lot in common with other sith idealogies other than a title of Sith and usage of the dark side.
Will a Sith Vader placate the wants of those who misunderstand the issues associated with the Legacy era addition?
Why is the viewpoint that the Sith faction needs to be inclusive of everything called Sith between OR so much more right than a viewpoint that holds the Sith faction to be the Pre-rise of the Empire era Sith, with the Legacy Sith being thrown in there out of necessity? Why does the Sith faction need to be an era-less faction when it can still be essentially a One-Era faction?
One Era! That's Crazy! Well, no. The Legacy Era does not exist in Star Wars Minis. Every era has a good faction and a bad faction, to put it simply. 4 Eras, 4 pairs of good/bad. Now you throw a 5th era into the mix, without making factions for that Era! The Legacy sith are there for GAMEPLAY reasons, not faction identity ones. To want a Sith Vader from a faction identity standpoint is to misinterpret the realities of a game that needs to be playable. Essentially, these Legacy Sith, whose placements are the root of the misunderstanding of the issue, were thrown in because they needed to exist according to WotC.
The legacy era simply wasn't big enough to warrant completely new factions on a gameplay level. This cannot be misunderstood to mean that this was a clear step by WotC saying that the Sith faction was intended from the beginning, or was intended from that point of LotF on, to be the faction of "Everyone ever laying claim to the title of Sith, and their followers."
When Vader, Dooku, and Palpatine already have corresponding eras, it is a misrepresentation of the development of the game to say that because characters without an Era were added to a faction, that that faction has suddenly opened itself to anyone who could possibly fit under an interpretation of the name of that faction.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/26/2009
Posts: 1,382
Location: Detroit, Mi
|
+2 to Cerous! I just didn't want to waste the space by putting his quote in!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/29/2009
Posts: 496
Location: Nebraska
|
No offense to cerous, but why shouldn't a thread titled "Should a Darth Vader ever be made for the Sith Faction?" have discussion about whether or not Darth Vader should ever be made for the Sith faction?
Honestly the most frantic anyone got was when cerous told people to stop posting because they wanted to take the game seriously: "This was and I'll make blasted well sure still is a light hearted discussion, if your are taking it seriously, JUMP OFF."
I apologize for caring about the development of the game instead of thinking game design is silly and should just be done lightly(?)
There's a difference between forward thinking and stating reasons for making Vader being sith are valid becuase you say they are valid. I have already pointed out how the justification for making Vader Sith from a name of faction, idealogical, era, and game balance perspectives are in fact not relevant, because those reasonings (except for the game balance ones) create contradictions when they are applied to other factions who they are actually more applicable to.
The addition of a 5th era into a 4 era system is something that although most are not ignoring it, they aren;t thinking of the implications.
As for game balance issues, the V-sets have allowed us to have characters that would likely not have been deemed commercially viable by WotC. Although the dramatic increase in the competitiveness of so many factions at once worried me a bit, DotF was a huge step in balancing out the factions. Vader and Dooku are not needed in that regard at all; we will get plenty of Sith now that the game is not being produced for profit.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
AdmiralMotti89 wrote:
The legacy era simply wasn't big enough to warrant completely new factions on a gameplay level. This cannot be misunderstood to mean that this was a clear step by WotC saying that the Sith faction was intended from the beginning, or was intended from that point of LotF on, to be the faction of "Everyone ever laying claim to the title of Sith, and their followers."
When Vader, Dooku, and Palpatine already have corresponding eras, it is a misrepresentation of the development of the game to say that because characters without an Era were added to a faction, that that faction has suddenly opened itself to anyone who could possibly fit under an interpretation of the name of that faction.
The argument about Legacy 'having to go somewhere' would be stronger if there weren't other alternatives. A new faction would have been possible. WotC only made 14 different Vong, after all, and they started out with only 4. Not that I'm an advocate of more and smaller factions, but it clearly was an option. And they could have been Fringe with 'anti-affinity' to keep them out of, say, a New Republic squad. But they chose to put them in the Sith faction, despite them being in a different era. The fact that Sith later got several movie characters (HoloSid, Maul, Palpatine after he was burned by Mace) further supports the idea that WotC redefined Sith faction from an era-specific faction to an era-less faction. Even if you say that Maul and Palpatine are from before the movies, they (and Darth Plagueis) still don't fit time-wise as opponents of the Old Republic. I think we'll just have to disagree. I don't think either side finds the other side's arguments persuasive.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/4/2008
Posts: 1,441
|
Sorry FlyingArrow - your answers show a great deal of rewriting history. Let me explain why you are wrong :) - in the most fun and having a great time waiting for the Superbowl to start way that I can! FlyingArrow wrote:The argument about Legacy 'having to go somewhere' would be stronger if there weren't other alternatives. A new faction would have been possible. WotC only made 14 different Vong, after all, and they started out with only 4. Not that I'm an advocate of more and smaller factions, but it clearly was an option. Nope, it definitely was not a legitimate option. I'm not sure if you were around, but there was very much a public sentiment against the creations of new factions. And I know for a fact that Rob was well aware of such sentiment. There was a strong desire not to make new factions that could not be regularly supported. All you've said is that it was an "option" but that's the same as saying they had also had the "option" to add a new faction of ewoks. Sure, they did have the "option" but it wasn't chosen. And not because of WotC's secret desire to redefine Sith as you've eluded. Read the testimony from every person who was around playing in the early days. Everyone is telling you that WotC did this more on a "best fit" scenario and because of a desire not to make more small factions. Not because they wanted to redefine the Sith. Saying anything else is not supported by the facts and is revisionist history. We heard this straight from Rob. FlyingArrow wrote:And they could have been Fringe with 'anti-affinity' to keep them out of, say, a New Republic squad. Nope - wrong again. There is only one example of anti-affinity and it doesn't work this way - only in the complete reverse. People bring this up all the time, but no one actually seems to read Kota's card and recognize the design implications of it. They never, ever did this, and I think that was a line they never intended to cross. Again, saying it's an option is equivalent to saying that making the HE-Man and She-Ra faction was an option. Sure it was, but it wasn't as easy as you claim. This would have been a major new precedent that never existed, and I believe violated a central design motivation of Rob's - simplicity. Rob stated multiple times he wanted the game simple. If they wanted this anti-affinity in the game, they could have done it about 400 times before DC. They did not, which pretty much demonstrates your argument here is again, false history. FlyingArrow wrote:But they chose to put them in the Sith faction, despite them being in a different era. The fact that Sith later got several movie characters (HoloSid, Maul, Palpatine after he was burned by Mace) further supports the idea that WotC redefined Sith faction from an era-specific faction to an era-less faction. This is your best point, however, both Maul and HoloSid were figures from several years before the Separatists existed - that's why they ended up Sith. The Sid, I agree, was an odd one, but if you look again, it went with Maul the "Sith Apprentice". They also made a Vader "Sith Apprentice" after that, and what faction did he go in? That's right, WotC, Rob and Peter did not redefine it the way you suggest. Outliers exist, this is true, but that's the case in anything like this. Not everything fits perfectly. Heck, pretty much the entire fringe faction could be used as evidence that WotC did not care about era at all - which is 100% as equally valid of a point as anything you said about it. In fact, it has way more evidence of my point than you have made. With that said, I really doubt anyone would get behind the idea that WotC did not care one bit about era because of the fringe. FlyingArrow wrote:Even if you say that Maul and Palpatine are from before the movies, they (and Darth Plagueis) still don't fit time-wise as opponents of the Old Republic. All three are pre-movie Sith. They don't really fit as Separatists either. I don't think you were around, but there were days that the WotC board would blow up over arguments about why Darth Maul was a Separatist character, considering he dies long before it.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 7/29/2009
Posts: 496
Location: Nebraska
|
billiv15 wrote:Sorry FlyingArrow - your answers show a great deal of rewriting history. Let me explain why you are wrong :) - in the most fun and having a great time waiting for the Superbowl to start way that I can! One of the Top 5 post intros of all time.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 5/26/2009
Posts: 8,428
|
billiv15 wrote:Sorry FlyingArrow - your answers show a great deal of rewriting history. Let me explain why you are wrong :) - in the most fun and having a great time waiting for the Superbowl to start way that I can!
...
That was a lot of words to repeat the same arguments as before, but they don't really show I'm "wrong" - just show a different opinion.  As you say, the options I listed were in fact options, just not the ones that were preferred. And I'm not arguing in favor of them, either, of course. I agree with the sentiments of several others - this was a great discussion. I'd like to reiterate what I think was the best point from my last post: Quote:I think we'll just have to disagree. I don't think either side finds the other side's arguments persuasive. Since I've already stated my opinion (at least) twice, I'll just bow out. Also, I'm pretty sure there's a corollary to Godwin's law that relates to He-Man and She-Ra.
|
|
|
Guest |