Cool idea. I totally think that Servitor Primes and Archon's came about because of the Traveller. They wanted to replicate the Traveller and how it could create Ether.

In the Fallen Grimoire card it stated: [i]"Brutal and uncaring, they arrived on their massive Ketches in the wake of the Collapse to loot and pillage our devastated worlds."[/i] They arrived after the Collapse, not during. This fits, because they're scavengers. They swoop in when the Darkness is done and take whatever scraps they can get.

Good guys? Bad guys? It's only a matter of perspective. We have no memories, we're undead. We don't have flashbacks or learn anything about our Guardians themselves. Every action that we take in the entire game is to defend our planet and species - at the same time we also defend the Traveller because we are told that is in our interest. Makes sense - the Traveller saved each of us through our Ghosts, people say it defended the City... It seems to be a good idea to embrace this sybiosis. Note though, how we're just an inconvenience to most other races. They all want the Traveller. It is either power source, God, or enemy to all - even us. Facing a hostile universe, any species that didn't covet the Traveller is a stupid species. So are we bad? Nope. Is the Traveller bad? Maybe. It knows that it is coveted. It knows that war and the darkness follow it. It cannot hide itself in deep space, but it can disguise itself by hiding amongst an existing civilisation (We're already giving off energy and perhaps even "Light", so are not such a dark background to hide against). It could keep running - but it doesn't want to or cannot run fast enough. So we get picked as the final hiding spot, the final civilisation to be uplifted, the unwitting final defenders, the ablative warrior shield - and then are appeased with the gift of resurrection (for few) as if to say sorry. Is the Traveller evil? Not really, it's simply operating on principles of survival. It makes the same sorts of decisions that generals make whenever they send men into battle. Does it have the right to make these decisions? (Does anyone?) Should it have offered itself in sacrifice? (Would an army of the Darkness uplifted by a torn apart Traveller, that reached Earth in the far future be defeated by humanity's strength alone, or does an uplifted but culled humanity stand more chance of survival against a weaker army of the Darkness?) Ultimately the Traveller made a choice to be active rather than passive in it's and humanity's fates. As humans, we tend to make the judgement that action is more moral than inaction, even if it does not lead to our desired outcome. We respect those that try, but fail. We revile those that fail to try.

Interesting concept . To be honest though , I'd follow Stalin if he gave me a black hammer at the end of it :P