| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
Ellirumicha |
|||
|
haha...dude you are just taking my previous argument I made in that another topic about you guys not be evil enough. Take a long look at TSC.......You'll
are just the TGC version of Lord Kaan's brotherhood of Darkness. I'm not saying The Affinity won't be any different, but they will be more intune
with the Darth Bane/Palpatine philosphy of how the Sith should impact the galaxy then TSC is at the moment.
|
|||
arumizy |
|||
|
Elli you havnt paid attention much have, the biggest thing people have had is the entire TSC united thing. No in fighting , being nice, talking philosophies
with jedi and all. And i doubt the Affinity will be, sith do not make "Deep Alliances: We use, then we destroy. We do not love each other or care for the
"GReater Good" We are there for power. We kill other sith if we feel that will make us more powerful, we do not supply" Sith" to Empires
that we do not rule.
|
|||
DarkSkyKerberos |
|||
|
I'm with Aru on this... Completely against order (as my ct says
|
|||
Malice Draclau |
|||
|
Come now Sky you know good and well I have my own reasons for governing Thyferra. I pocket a lot of the revenue that flows in....and none is the wiser since
no one checks up on me anywho.
I would welcome this new faction....would give TSC another toy to play with. and with all those that would leave TSC to join there, it would give us more prey to hunt. |
|||
Vega Van Derveld |
|||
|
It seems like Korran's group wants to play a kind of post-Bane/Palpatine Era take on Sith. Ordered, regimental.
On the opposite side, TSC would be pre-Bane... warlords, cultists, zealots, all desiring constant strife and conflict. |
|||
Malice Draclau |
|||
|
we'd be like the sith empires of old. Always at a constant war with one another, vying to take the seat of power from our brethren....while at the same
time working together to destroy our common foes.
|
|||
Raine Marzullo |
|||
|
All the governors are not just over their respective planets for a political purpose, yet something more seeded. I have my own purpose for occupying Ziost for
the Sith Council. I just do not understand how Imperial Knights [from what I have gathered...] are Jedi who support the ideal of the Empire as far as a
political stand-point is concerned. How is that allowed on a Sith faction?
Or say wookiepedia says... They were fully trained in the ways of the Force and, unlike previous Imperial Force-based organizations, rejected the dark side of the Force. Someone care to enlighten everyone who has questions on this? Because I'm completely drawing a blank. |
|||
arumizy |
|||
|
TSC is nothing like that though Vega. The sith are United blah blah blah been through this a dozen times.
|
|||
Korran Halcyon |
|||
|
I see TSC being very Rule of the Strong, whereas The Affinity would be Rule of One.
|
|||
Korran Halcyon |
|||
|
Also, Arumi, I've seen about three sith civil wars since TSC was started, so don't give me that trash about them being united.
|
|||
kypzethdurron |
|||
|
The faction's going to be slow...
|
|||
Admiral Disra |
|||
How is that allowed on a Sith faction?Just tweak the concept. We aren't BOUND BY WOOKIEEPEDIA. |
|||
Korran Halcyon |
|||
|
Aye, you convince them that the darkside is the only thing that will offer them the power needed to create order in the galaxy. BAM, sense they are devoted to
Order it works.
|
|||
Raine Marzullo |
|||
|
I realize that, Disra. However, when you present a "stance" on something you might want to make sure things are clear. And, those who are with this
Imperial Knight idea would have to be in agreement to it being adjusted. I don't like when things are assumed.
|
|||
Vega Van Derveld |
|||
arumizy wrote:Are they? Whenever I've been here, they haven't been united. People have worked together, but typically for selfish ends, rather than to work towards some shared vision. There has always been division amongst the ranks. That aside, there is nothing to stop TSC from becoming MORE ruthless. Korran, would you agree with my assessment of the situation? i.e. before and after Bane? I'm just trying to get some clear idea in my mind of what the differences between the groups would be. |
|||
Malice Draclau |
|||
|
thats the basics of it Vegs. Order for them....and an organized chaos for us.
|
|||
Admiral Disra |
|||
Raine Marzullo wrote:Those are ARE with this Imperial Knight idea ARE in agreement with it being adjusted. You just assumed they weren't. |
|||
Korran Halcyon |
|||
|
I suppose you could kind of describe it that way, Vega. I think of it as Rule of Strong (pre Bane) and Rule of One (the thing that came after Rule of Two which
came from "after" Bane)
|
|||
DarkSkyKerberos |
|||
|
I am against the Rule of the One or even a rule of a few right now for a new faction, but I hope you guys succeed in your vision.
If you decide to go in a different direction though, let me know & I will probably be down for it. As said above - I would be for a faction w/out fleets, no armies - more PC geared - and with the main goal of defeating the lightside and bringing chaos & darkness rather than rule and order. |
|||
ravendarkness88 |
|||
|
I was thinking like a very poor Sith faction with nothing but themselves and their lust for power....
Thats just me. |
|||
EPIII: ROTS 10th Anniversary: