The Philosophy of Kreia: A Critical Examination of Star Wars

[Beta12]

Super duper good video, lots of interesting insights and research. It is very long, but I really like how he picked apart Kreia and her philosophy, definitely worth the listen if you have the time!

 

[Undine]

Could not agree more, even shared this same video a couple places around the site recently. I particularly liked how Kreia was "gray" more in philosophy then use of the Force. I've never believed that being grey meant you had to be a mix of the light ir the dark. Kreia was very much a dark side Force user, the Jedi exile is considered to have been light sided as far as Legends canon goes, but both were prime examples og being grey. The idea that being grey had more to do with recognizing the faults of the light or dark side, and being able or simply willing to work around them was an interesting concept.

 

[Beta12]

Could not agree more, even shared this same video a couple places around the site recently. I particularly liked how Kreia was "gray" more in philosophy then use of the Force. I've never believed that being grey meant you had to be a mix of the light ir the dark. Kreia was very much a dark side Force user, the Jedi exile is considered to have been light sided as far as Legends canon goes, but both were prime examples og being grey. The idea that being grey had more to do with recognizing the faults of the light or dark side, and being able or simply willing to work around them was an interesting concept.​

Couldn't have said it better myself! I really enjoyed this video because it opened my eyes to how interesting the force is itself, and how the Jedi and the Sith work with it! The idea of being "grey" made a lot more sense after the video!

 

[Ulysses]

I found it interesting, but also there is a conspicuous absence of critique of Kreia. For example:

1. what constitutes "the self" (in terms of relying on it) when it includes ability to manipulate people but not to manipulate the force?
2. what is the point of imposing one's will on the galaxy if it is neither the individualism of the Sith nor the corporatism of the Jedi?
3. what happens when there are two Kreias, each exerting their will over the galaxy?

 

[Undine]

I found it interesting, but also there is a conspicuous absence of critique of Kreia. For example:

1. what constitutes "the self" (in terms of relying on it) when it includes ability to manipulate people but not to manipulate the force?
2. what is the point of imposing one's will on the galaxy if it is neither the individualism of the Sith nor the corporatism of the Jedi?
3. what happens when there are two Kreias, each exerting their will over the galaxy?

To start off, there needs to be a clear distinction between what Kreia's version of "grey" is and what many people think of when they hear the term "grey Jedi" or "grey Force user." In terms of Kreia's personal philosophy, it isn't meant to stand alone, but alongside the classic principles of either the light or dark sides of the Jedi or Sith, respectfully. In gaming terms, Kreia's teachings are more of an expansion or DLC, rather than the main game itself. Her teachings are meant to serve as a patch or bug fix to the corrupted or faulty codes that are the Jedi and Sith teachings, as she views them. What I mean is you would need the groundwork of either the Jedi, Sith, or both before adapting those philosophies with the idea presented by Kreia. It is for this reason that when viewing the term "grey" through the lens of the ideas present in this video, that one wouldn't truly separated from either the Light or Dark, and while one could maintain a balance between the two as far as spiritually, most under this mentality would remain with either the Sith, Jedi, or whatever other Force group they belong to.

There is another distinction needed to be made, it is the difference in the mentality presented by Kreia and her personal goals and desires she used it for. The idea that the Force is nothing more than a tool to be used or wielded, but not blindly followed isn't a new concept, and Kreia wasn't the first or last to develop such ideas. They way she used this understanding however, and her own personal beliefs surrounding it and the Force, are what makes the character so unique. I can't think of any other being that thought of the Force itself as a living, breathing thing with dominion over them all. I would point out that, and while I personally HATE the very concept of them, the ancient Force beings known as the Father, Sister, and Brother, were, in a way, what Kreia was talking about, though they did not likely posses the omnipotence that Kreia attributed to the Force. In a way, the deaths of these beings as seen in the Clone Wars tv show, would have caused the Force to return to it's natural state, which I personally would consider to be Chaos, such as in Greek mythology. I would just like to state, I hate every point presented in the last two sentences, and I hate the idea that there are gods or beings of greater power in star wars.

Now, that is all how Kreia views the Force and uses the mentality of "greyness" or "balance." This doesn't not mean it's the only view or perspective of that mentality, as it was warped and twisted by Kreia's own hatred and fear. She saw herself being betrayed by both the Jedi and the Sith, but on a grander scale she considered herself to have been betrayed by the Force itself. Regardless of the fact that she preached the ideals of her philosophy, I don't think she truly followed them, however, I think she believed in them wholeheartedly and believed she was following them. She was far to blinded by her own hubris and hatred of the Force to truly be considered balanced. Her mentality was just too unstable, her back and forth between the Jedi and the Sith made her teachings hollow. Yes, she was an extremely powerful Force user, wielding an understanding of the Light and the Dark I've only seen in Revan before her, and none sense. That being said, being "balanced" had nothing to do with Force alignment, but the fundamental understanding that one can not simply find all the answers in one place, in this case, within one code, the Jedi's or the Sith's. The fact that each have changed and adapted overtime proves this enough. In its most basic form, the mentality of "grey" or "balanced" is more about seeking knowledge and understand from many masters and teachings, rather than one sole doctrine.

With all that out of the way, one to your points @Ulysses

1. The ability to manipulate people is a skill, as is the Force, however just because you can manipulate people it doesn't mean you depend on them. In fact, being able to manipulate people to fulfill your goals while not putting yourself at risk is kinda the point of manipulating people to begin with. Someone who is very skilled in this regard will be able to get what they want multiple ways without it requiring much on their part, while also putting the people they are manipulating in such a place that if they refused, they would be the ones shouldering the risk, rather than the manipulator.

Here is a video that does a wonderful job explaining this: When he talks about "frames" consider Force technique known as "shatterpoints" to be a very similar concept, but applied to the Force.

The difference between manipulating others and use of the Force, is that by manipulating others you increase your own possibilities. The same is true of the Force, the difference is Kreia's personal bias against the Force and Force users. It is true that many Force users become overly dependent on the possibilities presented by the Force that they rarely seek possibilities outside of the Force. The result? If and when the Force is no longer there for them to rely on, according to Kreia, such a Force user is left with few if any possibilities. As explained in the video above, the one who controls the options has all the power. As Kreia saw it, the Force itself was the manipulator, or puppetmaster of the Star Wars universe, and everything within it was it's playthings. In effect she wanted to cut the strings between the master and it's puppets.

As far as the "self" that would be one's own desires, thoughts, and goals. Simply put, you, or me in my case. Lol. Because of this we all have our own perspectives of what the "self" is and what it means to be in control of one's self. For an anarchist, it would likely be complete freedom of laws or societal constructs, for a pacifist this could simply be spiritual or personal enlightenment. A pacifist might consider themselves in control of their self while still locked in chains rotting in some dungeon, so long as they didn't go against their own ideals or morals. The anarchist on the other hand would have a much different perspective under the same situation.

2. There is much conflict between the ideals presented by Kreia's philosophy, and each individual would find different contradictions depending on their own perspectives. Something that might make perfect sense to you could be donkey backwards for someone else. This both contradicts the first point of being in control of the "self" and builds on it. According to Kreia's perspective, to truly be in control of the "self" you must not allow anyone to manipulate you, but also be willing to manipulate others. When the idea and ideals of the "self" are thought of as through the eyes of a single being, it basically means nothing and no one else matters so long as you get what you desire. This is very similar to the ideals of Nihilism, though this does lead to hubris and self-centeredness. potentially to the point of self destruction or even reliance up dominating or controlling others, thus defeating its own ideals. On the other hand, when applied to society, it's similar to Socialism in the thought that we are at out best when we work together and support one another. In it's extreme, it leaves the doors open to two primary outcomes, the "self" of society becomes an untouchable thing, borderline worshiped by all people within a given socity and any nonconforming idea or thought because a threat, thus purging individual freedoms or collapsing under the "duty" of the greater good. Both would effectively defeat their original ideals.

In those aspects, your second point is the crucial failing of this mentality, when not properly applied or understood, as in Kreia's case. In the end, Kreia was blinded by her hubris and hatred, personally she was a combination of the nihilism and socialism routes presented above, (there are other routes and ways of looking at it but those were two of the more simplistic ones), she wasn't simply trying to free the universe of the Force, though I think she fully believed this was her only goal, rather she her perspective of "helping" others was only masking an underlying self-centeredness and disassociation from the rest of the galaxy. Basically, her thought process behind her intentions wasn't grounded within the ideals she preached, but in her own hubris and hatred of the Force. As I've stated multiple times, Kreia was blinded by her hubris, even though she was able to see the internal failings of both the Jedi and Sith codes and philosophies, even adapting them into something arguably better, she was never fully able to apply her newfound understanding to herself. She never considered the idea that she had been wrong, only that others had been, thus was her hubris, which festered into hatred and eventually blinding her to other possibilities.

We saw a similar situation with Yoda at the tail end of the Clone Wars when he was finally learning to understand and accept the living Force. Like Kreia, Yoda's biggest failing was his hubris as he thought he'd learned everything there was to learn, thus blinding himself to further spiritual enlightenment. He was able to let of and overcome his hubris, even accepting that he had not indeed learned everything. Kreia on the other hand, saw herself as the wisest of all, considering her achievement of learning from and overcoming the shortcomings of both the Jedi and Sith to be the height of all understanding and learning. This hubris, which blinded her to further understanding, paired with her hatred and at the core of that hatred, her fear of the Force, she became so narrow sighted on her one goal, that she never fully developed into the ideals she spoke of. Her understanding skewed and her desires unattainable, she eventually self-destructed when she attempted to teach her ideals to the Jedi Exile, effectively leading her down a path to where she would eventually kill Kreia and the teachings of the Lord of Betrayal would die with her.

In effect, it really depends on which core philosophy you view the galaxy through, that determines the purpose behind manipulating others. Some would see it as the height of mastery of the "self" imposing one's own will over others. While some still would consider it the complete destruction of the "self" and seek to live a more passive life. At it's core, the mentality behind the "self" is really dependent on the individual in question, for Kreia, she wanted to be free of everything and anyone, even desiring the complete destruction of the Force, which is basically one of the fundamental laws of the star wars universe. It'd be like destroying gravity in our own universe. If it were possible, you'd destroy the universe as we knew it and we'd all likely died or cease to exist altogether. Similarly, it's doubtful the removal of the Force would affect the star wars universe as Kreia purposes it would, or even that her chosen method of removing it would even work, as even in the case of Force wounds or echos, the Force still returned in time. Yes, there was a mark left behind, a stain, but the Force echoed on, it wasn't simply absent.

3. The strongest will would prevail, or simply one would prevail where it's influence was stronger than the others, but would never dominate the other's will entirely, assuming one did not kill the other, in which case there'd only be one again. Think of this like radio waves when listening to music in your car, even if you never change the dial, you'll pick up many different stations along a lengthy road trip, one station fading as another's signal became stronger.

 

[Dav Wren]

Kreia seems to share much more in common with the Sith perspective, or at least, the Sith Lords who weren't psychopaths, sadists and just wantonly destructive. For example, Bane asked Zannah essentially 'what is the point of power in and of itself?'. Power for power's sake is a waste. I don't recall Bane ever reading Traya's philosophy but they are similar.

He also told Zannah that killing should always serve a purpose. That everything has collateral damage, a ripple in the pond. Pretty similar.

Kreia and Bane are great characters, right up there with the best written ones in any sci-fi property I have written or seen.

 

[Undine]

I agree, personally I think Kreia's influence on Bane, to any extent she might have had, was two fold, on the one hand I doubt that Bane wouldn't have heard of Kreia or her teachings and ideas, taking a few of them himself as well as those from other sith that came before him. At the same time, I think Kreia serves as a primary example of the reasoning Bane had for developing the Rule of Two, she might not be named as such, but her story of betrayal would have been exactly the sort of thing Bane despised within the Sith. Neither of Darth Traya's students were stronger than she was, only together were they able to overcome her and strip her of her power, something Bane despised.

I think Kreia's own hubris and hatred muddled her teachings a bit, her views more narrow minded than her own philosophy would have allowed. At the end of Kotor 2, we see Keira as she truly was, completely immersed in the dark side and only having operated under a sort of force stealth similar to Palpatine. She had never actually managed to adapt herself to be more balanced, as she had believed herself to be, refusing to acknowledge her true leanings until the very end. It is for this reason she seems to follow more of a sith perspective. In my opinion, she was still a sith when she died, and yet, somehow still a Jedi as well.

There are two Jedi whom I believe came very close to a lightside version of Kreia, ironically, both wielded purple lightsabers, which suggest they had internal ties with both the light and the dark. However, neither of them really managed to adapt the Jedi Code into something greater, and they both relied on the Force to an extent far beyond seeing it as a mere tool. Mace Windu and An'ya Kuro, the later being from Legends continuity. Despite the lack of expanding on the Jedi Code, or seeing it's faults for what they were, both of these powerful and respected Jedi still managed to adapt themselves as far as their mentality behind their use of the Force, becoming something stronger than just a regular Jedi. This suggests that they did indeed have a keen understanding of multiple aspects and ideals of the Force, even though they never really expressed such thoughts.

 

[The Living Daylights]

Could not agree more, even shared this same video a couple places around the site recently. I particularly liked how Kreia was "gray" more in philosophy then use of the Force. I've never believed that being grey meant you had to be a mix of the light ir the dark. Kreia was very much a dark side Force user, the Jedi exile is considered to have been light sided as far as Legends canon goes, but both were prime examples og being grey. The idea that being grey had more to do with recognizing the faults of the light or dark side, and being able or simply willing to work around them was an interesting concept.​

Yes, this completely. The game files overtly call Kreia a dark-sider and "evil", but that doesn't change the fact that she's a much grayer character than the vast majority of the mythos, and so is the Exile (at least conceptually). That's why there's a LS and DS story and nothing in-between; you're not rewarded for walking the middle ground because that has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of the Jedi and Sith Orders of the time being the extremes, and finding the middle between them, as opposed to an imaginary middle-ground Force alignment.

She's one of my favourite characters, with some excellent writing and voice acting from Sara Kestelman. I have mixed views of Bane; the concepts surrounding him are pretty good but he's not written as well as Kreia.

 

[Undine]

She's one of my favourite characters, with some excellent writing and voice acting from Sara Kestelman. I have mixed views of Bane; the concepts surrounding him are pretty good but he's not written as well as Kreia.

The reason for this, and I say not only as a writer but as a storyteller, is because the creation process of Darth Traya and Darth Bane was different. On the one hand, Darth Bane was first mentioned when referring to the creation of the Rule of Two, it wouldn't be till later on that the character and how he went about developing and putting into practice this new philosophy that we'd get an in depth look at the character himself. Because the ideas of him were first thought of without much thought given to the development of the character you end up with a lesser quality character.

One of the things I tell all the authors I work with is to flesh out their characters, before you ever worry about writing that first page, that first paragraph, flesh out the structure of your story, otherwise you'll end up writing chapters that serve no purpose. Lore is all fun and games, I personally love reading up on lore, but when you have ideas that you've set in stone before you've actually sat down and structured a character's development, their goals, desires, and history, you'll end up with a character that feels forced rather than human.

A lot of effort has gone into improving Darth Bane over the years, but he'll never make it to the top in terms of quality characters because there is a fundamental flaw at the foundation of his development. It's one thing to name drop a random NPC from history that will never make an appearance in the fictional setting represented in whatever work your reading or writing, but to then bring them into the fold without properly laying the groundwork for them makes them feel hollow. Darth Bane as an idea is great, as a character, he's always fallen flat in my opinion. Master Yoda's encounter with his spirit on Korriban perfectly illustrates my personal views on Darth Bane. He's someone who you're gonna know by name, but for the most part can just sweep aside with a gesture of the Force.

Kreia on the other hand, she was conceptualized, developed, and structured all at the same time, making the character come across in such a way that was full of context and history, yet still felt unknown. The first time I read the Darth Bane trilogy, I felt like I had already learned everything about the character, his biggest achievements and such. Darth Zannah was the much more appealing character because she was a mystery for me, even though I knew enough about her situation to draw some basic conclusions about her.

Think about it like this, when you start to write in a new setting that takes place in a world different than our own, if you just start writing about the various characters' journeys and such, making them visit locations that sound cool rather than make sense, you end up with a map of a world that looks like geography threw up after being through a blender. On the other hand, if you sit down and take the various ideas and cultures you want to see in your world, putting them in various places. you find that there should be a city at one location because it's on a major waterway between to countries or a castle would fit here because the mountains provide a decent location to quarry stone and it's a defensible location.

Finding these little spots here and there will go on to provide possibilities for story advancement later on when your characters need to travel through that area. Maybe it's not traveled very often and they are set on by bandits, perhaps the locals are wary of outsiders because they've been culturally isolated, and so much more. You end up with a world that starts to fill in itself, becoming more and more complex and intricate as the pieces just sort of fall together. In the end you'll find it much more satisfying to write about these locations and easier to get your characters around the map in such a way that flows organically.

The same basic idea is true with characters, the more effort you put into them before you start writing them into the overarching story, the more they will flow properly and not feel forced. This process is something I affectionately refer to as "multi-level story-structuring." A well structured story, a well structured world, well structured characters, and well structured cultures and societies, really it can be take to whatever level and extent you want Even though most of all this work will never be seen by your audience, it still helps to build up the quality of your work overall.

As far as Darth Bane goes, he HAD to eventually create the Rule of Two, and we never really see why or how he went about doing this, it's mostly just left for us to decide. How did one sith destroy all others? He'd have to be the most powerful Force user ever, which he isn't. Was is something else that caused the destruction of the sith? This limited his story potential, where as Kreia was a complete unknown to begin with which gave the game writers much more freedom to explore.

 

[The Living Daylights]

@Undine — That's quite a good treatise on character potential, though I was referring more to the fact that the quality of writing in general was just better in Kreia's case. Karpshyn sometimes sacrifices characterization for making his characters look powerful, which never happens with Kreia (her moments of showing off her power always serve a dual purpose).

 

[The Living Daylights]

A lot of people tend to cite Kreia's "killing of the Force" idea as a major letdown, but in all honesty, for me it was a masterstroke. She wins either way because if she kills you, she kills the Force (presumably), and if she dies, she ends up forging her greatest disciple ever. And the actual killing the Force thing is just a classic example of "man killing God" which hadn't really been explored in SW. So I have no issues with it.

What I respect about KotOR II is that it challenges standard SW mentality. Sure, it reeks of Avellone's agenda in many places but it's still a game that challenges the notions that were established in the Original Trilogy and reinforced by a myriad of sources since. It's just a breath of fresh air, IMHO. I also liked the way nearly everything in the game came together (especially if you have TSLRCM).

 

[Dav Wren]

I've never really liked Mace Windu, even reading the side novels like Shatterpoint. To me he was not truly a Jedi. Again, criticism of Jedi philosophy aside, he didn't live up to those ideals. Ironically, he chastised Anakin (who I don't like much either) for doing the same. I also got the impression that he didn't like Qui-Gonn's maverick streak either. That sort of thing struck me as hypocritical.

Kreia, yeah her bitterness was what caused her to temporarily leave behind both Orders. However, I read into her dialogue that she tended to think the Sith had greater potential. She was more in-line with them the whole time. So I've always seen her as a divergent Sith. Bane, although more extreme in her views. I think that was what made her really interesting, the idea of 'what if someone pushed away from convention as much as possible'.

However, ultimately Yoda's warning to Luke came true. 'Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.'

I think Kreia sort-of shows that you can't really dabble with the Dark Side without it corrupting you. It's the slow illness, the malignancy. It may lurk for years but it will come for you. No one can escape it's effects (for example, Jaden Korr, anyone?).

The TCW handling of Bane annoyed me. For such a pivotal character in the story, he just got swept away like that. By a version of a character that I really dislike in TCW/Prequel era Yoda. Interesting how much that incarnation of Yoda is so arrogant and sure of himself. Much like the other Jedi Council members during Revan's time.

 

[The Living Daylights]

@Dav Wren — Yoda up to the end of RotS in general is overly sure of himself, which he admits in various sources like the RotS novel/junior novel. Naturally, he realizes it too late.

But I agree that it's clear that Kreia's a dark sider. She really was a Sith the whole time who was using you but had feelings for you, and she herself makes that clear.

 

[Ulysses]

Sorry @Undine for the delay in posting. I had a draft response written and then other people got their first and I had some deadlines that meant any kind of deep thinking was out the window.

Firstly, you have clearly thought about this a lot more than me and so I apologise for the incoherent ramblings that follow. I will try my best to group them into some kind of structure.

The next thing to say is that you are much more critical of Kreia than the video is: the video seems to present Kreia as the pinnacle of Star Wars thinking, one who came closest to breaking the cycle of light and dark, the fusion of thesis and antithesis; whereas you are quite candid with her flaws, which was (half) the point of my original post.

I think the first thing that I am unclear on is whether Kreia is imparting ethical or practical instruction, whether her "philosophy" has an ethical component to it or is simply that which she believes to be most effective. For example, in relation to the reliance question, the salient difference between manipulation of the force and of people is that one is more reliable than the other in Kreia's worldview: the force has betrayed her, she is still able to manipulate people. She cannot conceive of, say, losing her persuasiveness. Therefore that is more part of "herself" than her ability to control the force. On at least one version of the KOTOR II ending, she does not successfully manipulate the exile. Therefore, it cannot logically be an intrinsic part of herself (this is also what the "what if there are two manipulators?" question was getting at). Therefore we are not dealing with an ethical injunction to be self reliant, but a pragmatic warning to rely on that which is most reliable (which is so trite as to be meaningless).

Perhaps I didn't understand the video you shared subsequently, but it seems to equivocate between "frames" being subjective experience and objective reality. It starts with a scene about what the characters believe about their circumstances, and then jumps to lessons about lessons about introducing "new" possibilities (e.g. trial by combat). At every turn it felt like it was about to turn into a self help video about "just believe and you can do anything". However, the possibilities weren't new - the right to trial by combat already existed - and even less were they created by some belief of the character exploiting them. Rather, if anything, it was the quick wit of the prisoner to realise that the possibility existed. I'm not sure whether that is relevant though, as your argument works fine, just taking the objective version: i.e. "whoever has the most possibilities open to them has the most power" (a phrase almost as trite as "rely on the reliable"). Therefore Kreia's philosophy only seems to make sense if it is a way of giving both of those trite phrases meaning: i.e. telling us what is reliable and what can give a person possibilities. In which case it has no ethical component of its own: it relies entirely on power being a good in itself without exploring why.

I agree with the initial distinction of "grey" force users. There's the popular "alignment" grey Jedi who are often just an excuse for gamers to use lightning and heal without penalty and the more subtle "ethical" grey Jedi who question the doctrinal teachings of each group. I think that I would contend that Kreia actually conforms more to the popular conception than the other. If nothing else, Kreia is bound up in self aggrandisement: she wants to change the face of the galaxy, with no concern for the "tools" she uses to get there. The reason for her desire for power is indistinguishable from that of a Sith. The difference between her and a traditional sith is that the Sith use the force, she wants to destroy it. Admittedly, this is seeking an absence, rather than a plurality as the obnoxious gamer would, of force powers, but it bears closer resemblance to that than to a sceptical Jedi.

I wonder what you mean by the shortcomings of the light side? the light side as a manifestation of the force, as the ideals of harmony etc as posited in the code, or as the (or some) decisions of the council or individual members.

It appears that you beg your own question with your treatment of Mace Windu: I am not familiar with the material outside the films, and so am only working with what you wrote: you say that they do not expand on the Jedi code, nor expressed the thoughts you ascribe to them. You do say, however, that you take the fact that they became stronger than regular Jedi as evidence that they embraced multiple aspects of the force - which is what you were using them as examples to show.

Finally can I ask why you have such an aversion to the idea of personality to the force?

(apologies to everyone else, I haven't read enough to contribute to those discussions)

 

[The Living Daylights]

@Ulysses - Kreia's arguments are pretty much always in favour of practicality. Nowhere is that clearer than in the fact that she treats your companions (and all people except yourself) as a resource rather than a person. Her "ethics" somewhat align with that in she despises wanton violence and excessive brutality/charity and excessive kindness, but even there it's for practical reasons ("You're wasting energy", "you can still make use of these people"). Likewise when you reject feeding off Hanharr in the "Lesson of Strength" she applauds you, and again her argument is more practical than ethical.

I'm not sure what you mean by one version of the KotOR II ending featuring her failure to manipulate the Exile. Both endings are the same insofar as Kreia's aims and her situation with you go. The encounter is supposed to be revelatory (which is why she freely confesses her true nature and the extent of her actions), not manipulative. It's just a moment where she reveals the truth of herself and her actions to you. As for the outcome, either she kills you and presumably kills the Force with you, or she dies and you "break" and become her greatest disciple. Think that was intended to be something of a master stroke where she technically won either way.

You could also argue that her "killing the Force" stuff was literally just to get you to fight her seriously, and that she intended to die all along. That is why when you ask her about what's going to happen next, her immediate claim is that "the apprentice must kill the master", and she only mentions killing you "if you do not [kill her]". So it seems like she intended to die, and her sudden seeming lack of grievances towards the Force as she prepares to die (her final act is literally looking into the Force) would be explained if you think it was all a ruse to get you to kill her. It's not a confirmed perspective by any means but in this case, she actually does succeed in manipulating the Exile.

I recognize that some supplementary guides or whatever claim that she genuinely wanted to destroy the Force but these usually have inaccuracies regarding KotOR II (haven't come across a guide or sourcebook that hasn't, actually).