The Mandalorian Season 2

[Peelee]

Before that he made the entire galaxy dance to his tune for a generation. And before that, the Jedi maintained the peace for centuries. It isn't precognition that was their downfall but their own blindness and biases which clouded their judgement , causing them to misinterpret what they saw or in the case of the Ep.III making them blind.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

He made the galaxy dance to his tune for a generation largely due to being a good at playing politics to start with. The Sith weren't able to get to that point for a thousand years beforehand. And the Jedi rather pointedly did not engage in politics. Also, we see the Jedi being surprised just all the time. Their precognition is extremely limited to immediate danger and visions of the future are notoriously unreliable.

[dancrilis]

Always in motion inls the future. Everything proceeded as the Emperor had for seen right up until he got killed.

You are assuming that wasn't the plan.

And the Jedi rather pointedly did not engage in politics.

They tried to overthrow the democratically elected leader of The Republic - and failed so bad he used it as partial justification to establish The Empire, and they did that only due to his religion which they only heard about from one source and didn't bother to verify before seeking to arrest him.

One has to wonder what their plan was if it turned out he wasn't a Sith Lord (or if he was how they were planning to prove it to the politicians and confirm he didn't have a master or an apprentice out there still pulling the strings).

[Yanagi]

Always in motion inls the future. Everything proceeded as the Emperor had for seen right up until he got killed.

Less mystically the Empire is a triumph of low expectations.

The relatively small number of whims realized and fancy things created by strip mining a very large resource and talent pool seems impressive, but in the long term the constructed spectacles are wasteful and have limited utility.

It's like building a $20K kitchen and killing three chefs to make a cheese sandwich exactly the way you want it.

[Mechalich]

The problem with Force Users in government is that the Force is non-utilitarian. Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't something Jedi, or really any light side oriented force user, can acceptably do. Such actions gradually taint and corrupt them. But politics, in a universe of limited resources, demands hard choices of this kind all the time. Consequently, putting force users in charge of the government for anything other than extreme emergencies (ex. if the Republic needs to fight an all out war with a Sith Empire) is just a bad idea.

There are lots of examples throughout Star Wars of non-force using characters getting away completely unscathed with the kinds of actions that would drive force users to the dark side. one of the most famous Legends examples involves the deaths of Palpatine. In RotJ Luke has to throw down his lightsaber. He can't kill Palpatine on the Death Star, doing so would doom him and everyone in the room knows it. But in Dark Empire, a furious Han Solo shoots the cloned Palpatine in the back, killing him for the last time, and it's nothing to him.

Bottom line: politics is a dirty business, and force users have to be pure.

[Sapphire Guard]

aking back Tatooine from the Hutts would involve a massive law enforcement campaign of searches, seizures, arrests, interdictions, and more to put the squeeze on Hutt operations until they ceased to be profitable, at which point the Hutts would up-sticks and go somewhere else, Hutt society being very explicitly in it for the (giant piles of) money.

You might get Jabba to move offworld and tbh even that is pretty optimistic, but he'd just rule Tattooine from somewhere else, it wouldn't fix anything about the place or do anything to help slaves. Given that it would involve a significant investment from the Republic to police rules outside of Republic space, like empowering US police in Mexico, I feel like it would be tricky to get that through the Senate, unless Palpatine thinks it would be funny to pit the Jedi against the Hutts.

Trade sanctions would make the Hutts rich, because smugglers are suddenly in high demand.

Palps can run rings around non force users as much or better than the Jedi, having non force users in charge makes no difference.

[Keltest]

The problem with Force Users in government is that the Force is non-utilitarian. Choosing the lesser of two evils isn't something Jedi, or really any light side oriented force user, can acceptably do. Such actions gradually taint and corrupt them. But politics, in a universe of limited resources, demands hard choices of this kind all the time. Consequently, putting force users in charge of the government for anything other than extreme emergencies (ex. if the Republic needs to fight an all out war with a Sith Empire) is just a bad idea.

There are lots of examples throughout Star Wars of non-force using characters getting away completely unscathed with the kinds of actions that would drive force users to the dark side. one of the most famous Legends examples involves the deaths of Palpatine. In RotJ Luke has to throw down his lightsaber. He can't kill Palpatine on the Death Star, doing so would doom him and everyone in the room knows it. But in Dark Empire, a furious Han Solo shoots the cloned Palpatine in the back, killing him for the last time, and it's nothing to him.

Bottom line: politics is a dirty business, and force users have to be pure.

I don't know if I agree with that. You put a jedi in charge of organizing a humanitarian effort to help, say, naboo after some tidal event and they're still going to have to make a lot of hard choices.

I would also suggest that the jedi accidentally instilled a deep fear of falling into themselves, and that was a significant contributing factor to Anakin's fall. But there isn't any real evidence that you can't just get right back up again if you have the drive and desire to. Heck, thats what luke did to Vader.

[Dire_Flumph]

There are lots of examples throughout Star Wars of non-force using characters getting away completely unscathed with the kinds of actions that would drive force users to the dark side. one of the most famous Legends examples involves the deaths of Palpatine. In RotJ Luke has to throw down his lightsaber. He can't kill Palpatine on the Death Star, doing so would doom him and everyone in the room knows it. But in Dark Empire, a furious Han Solo shoots the cloned Palpatine in the back, killing him for the last time, and it's nothing to him.

But Vader killing Palpatine is seen as a redeeming moment. And Obi-Wan slices down Maul without comment. I think it's less that Luke can't kill Palpatine, he just underestimated his force ability by several magnitudes and thought Vader was the only real threat. Intent also matters, Anakin cut down Dooku after he was no further threat solely driven by revenge. If he had beheaded him earlier in the fight as a matter of necessity it wouldn't have been an issue.

Edit: But that absolutely should have been the end of Rise of Skywalker. Rey realizes that Palpatine is an empty shell held together by will alone and he needs a force sensitive body (or, sigh, Dyad) to take over. She realizes that going to fight him is exactly what he wants and serves as a rallying leader in the space battle instead. Palpatine is instead killed by a strike force of non-force sensitives (or heck, even 3P0 turning off his life support. I'd have loved that).

[Mechalich]

But Vader killing Palpatine is seen as a redeeming moment. And Obi-Wan slices down Maul without comment. I think it's less that Luke can't kill Palpatine, he just underestimated his force ability by several magnitudes and thought Vader was the only real threat. Intent also matters, Anakin cut down Dooku after he was no further threat solely driven by revenge. If he had beheaded him earlier in the fight as a matter of necessity it wouldn't have been an issue.

I mean, ultimately, the Force is weird. Everything in the Force happens in the now, meaning that the light/dark association of any particular action can shift from moment to moment depending on a variety of factors.

I don't know if I agree with that. You put a jedi in charge of organizing a humanitarian effort to help, say, naboo after some tidal event and they're still going to have to make a lot of hard choices.

There's a fairly strong argument for never putting the Jedi, or any force user, in charge of anything. They work best when given objectives, even broad and complex ones, that they can devote themselves to realizing. You can even give the Jedi nigh-impossible objectives and they'll carry them out.

The great advantage of the Force is that it empowers additional options in the case of moral quandaries. For instance, if you throw the trolley problem at a normal person their only option is to pull or not pull the switch. A Jedi has - and is obligated to pick - option C: "I stop the trolley with the power of my mind."

I would also suggest that the jedi accidentally instilled a deep fear of falling into themselves, and that was a significant contributing factor to Anakin's fall. But there isn't any real evidence that you can't just get right back up again if you have the drive and desire to. Heck, thats what luke did to Vader.

In Legends, the post-Ruusan Jedi Order was indeed deeply conservative and extremely worried about losing Jedi to the dark side. That was a reactive move triggered by the chaos of the New Sith Wars, an incredibly chaotic period from 2000 - 1000 BBY when the galaxy fell apart into thousands of rival Sith-dominated fiefdoms all begun by a Jedi who broke with the order and triggered a schism. So they undertook several practices, such as recruiting only very young children and forbidding all attachments that served as a means of risk mitigation. And it worked, for quite some time, and their downfall did come at the hands of Anakin who broke both of those rules.

Bringing someone back from the dark side is very difficult. Luke saving Vader was an extraordinary event. While characters can come back from to the light, it's usually a long, brutal, and complex process and the result is rarely any sort of paragon of goodness but a far more mixed character. The arc of Asajj Ventress as seen through the course of TCW is a much more typical representation of how this sort of thing goes.

[Aeson]

I mean, ultimately, the Force is weird. Everything in the Force happens in the now, meaning that the light/dark association of any particular action can shift from moment to moment depending on a variety of factors.

It's "weird" because you're looking at the morality of the actions themselves and failing to consider the morality of the motivations behind the actions. In striking down the Emperor at the end of his duel with Vader, Luke would be choosing to act out of fear, anger, or hate - the Emperor has not yet revealed himself to be a threat to Luke in any physical sense and there is no clear reason to think that the Emperor's death would have any influence on the outcome of the battle between Imperial and Rebel forces in the background as the Emperor for the most part appears to be an observer to the engagement, so what's Luke's immediate motivation to strike him down at the end of the duel? Hatred of what the Emperor stands for, anger over being manipulated into fighting his father, perhaps fear of what further machinations the Emperor could yet devise. Manipulating Luke into consciously choosing to take an action like this in contravention of his morals is exactly what Vader and the Emperor have been attempting to do throughout their time with Luke in the throne room - that's pretty much the entire point of the Emperor telling Luke that the Rebellion is walking into a trap and allowing Luke to witness the engagement between the Rebel and Imperial fleets was, it's part of why the Death Star superlaser's operational status was kept secret until Luke was in position to observe its effects, it's the primary reason for the Emperor to assure Luke that he's unarmed even as he encourages Luke to take up his lightsaber and strike him down, it's why Vader prods Luke over his failure to hide his relationship to Leia and suggests that Leia would be the next target for corruption if Luke refuses to fall, and it's why the Emperor speaks up at the end of the duel to push Luke to strike Vader down, because he doesn't really want Luke to kill Vader in the heat of the moment - he wants Luke to consciously set aside whatever remained of his earlier scruples and choose to kill Vader, now that Luke's been provoked into breaking his earlier moral restraint and in so doing has beaten Vader down and disarmed him.

[Mechalich]

It's "weird" because you're looking at the morality of the actions themselves and failing to consider the morality of the motivations behind the actions.

Um...yeah, the point is that the Force only considers the 'morality of the motivations' not the morality of the actions themselves. That is weird, it elevates motives above not only the ends, but also the means. It's probably best characterized as a form of virtue ethics, but one that completely disregards actions in place of feelings, and it simply does not match up well with the ethical understanding held by almost the entirety of the audience (ie. humans born in the 20th and 21st century).

Return of the Jedi contains a neat trick in that Luke tossing aside his lightsaber ultimately has a good outcome from a consequentialist perspective because Vader ultimately kills the Emperor anyway, but the actual ethics of the Force is that tossing aside his lightsaber was the right thing to do utterly irrespective of the outcomes, that it would have been the right choice even if Palpatine had simply pulled out a blaster and shot Luke and then immediately escaped the Death Star and gone on to rule the galaxy with an iron fist forever. IMO that's incredibly hard to accept, and there are a lot of things like this in Star Wars.

For example. In the Jedi Academy trilogy Kyp Durron falls to the dark side, gets his hands on a superweapon, and blows up a planet. A few hundred pages later he comes back to the light. Luke, as his Jedi Master, immediately forgives him and reinstates him as a Jedi and Kyp, after recovering from his injuries, goes back to gallivanting about the galaxy as a Jedi, ultimately becoming a Jedi Master himself. The fact that he's a mass murderer who obliterated an entire biosphere in a war crime for the ages just doesn't matter as far as Force-based ethics are concerned, and while Kevin J. Anderson got a lot of things about Star Wars wrong, he wasn't wrong about that. After all, Vader returns to the light at the end of RotJ, despite having killed, over the course of his quarter-century as a Sith Lord millions or billions of people (the count varies depending on continuity) and committed basically every atrocity for which humanity possesses a name multiple times. Lucas, smartly, elided the issue by immediately having Vader die, but if he had lived, as far as the Force is concerned it's not appropriate to punish Anakin for any of the stuff he did as Vader.

This makes a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. EU author Aaron Allston even had Luke explicitly admit (this happened in the FotJ novel Outcast, which is not a good series but the point was well made irrespective of that) that if you remove the Force from the equation the Jedi suddenly turn into criminals. Ethics as viewed through the lens of the Force simply aren't compatible with pretty much any secular conception of ethics known and considering that almost everyone in Star Wars who isn't Force sensitive has a secular understanding of ethics this gets very strange. If a non-Force sensitive person blows up a planet (ex. Grand Moff Tarkin), they'll be tried for planetary genocide and executed, but if a force user does that under dark side influence and returns to the light that suddenly becomes wrong.

It's very messy.

[Kitten Champion]

Whenever people discuss the Force in any deconstructive manner, my mind always goes to this scene in Donnie Darko.

[Aeson]

The problem with your argument for why Luke should be morally justified in killing the Emperor is that you are constructing a rationalization based on potentialities ("if the Emperor does not die by Luke's or Vader's hand in the throne room, he might survive the battle of Endor and go on to inflict untold harm upon the galaxy") and factors of which Luke is, to the audience's knowledge, unaware (the Emperor is a significant and immediate physical threat, not just a moral one). The only warnings Luke has been given regarding the Emperor's power are vague (things like "do not underestimate the Emperor's power" and "you do not know the power of the Dark Side of the Force"), and on top of that the Emperor presents himself as old, physically unimposing, unarmed, and reliant upon Vader for protection against Luke when virtually all previous encounters between Force adepts - especially in Luke's experience - have been rather physical in nature and involve weapons; additionally, Luke knows of Palpatine's success in corrupting Anakin and interest in corrupting him, and has also been warned several times that the Dark Side is an easy and seductive path, but not one which grants greater power. Thus, given what Luke sees of the Emperor, what Luke sees of the Emperor's behaviour, and what we know Luke knows of the nature of the Dark Side and the Emperor's past history of corrupting those around him, it would be reasonable for Luke to think that the threat of which he has been warned is largely, or perhaps even entirely, moral in character. Furthermore, we know that, at least on his arrival in the throne room, Luke expects the Rebel attack to succeed and it is strongly implied that he thinks that the Emperor will die as a direct consequence of that, rather undercutting the argument that in killing the Emperor Luke would not be acting immorally because he would be preventing potential future harm.

Also, arguing the morality of an actor based on the potential future outcomes and consequences of their actions is very questionable, and while it is in human nature to cut someone slack when their actions produce positive outcomes and judge more harshly when their actions produce negative outcomes that really doesn't have a lot of bearing on their morality.

Um...yeah, the point is that the Force only considers the 'morality of the motivations' not the morality of the actions themselves.

Is that actually true in Return of the Jedi, though? I do not believe it is; the Emperor does not appear to be a physical threat to Luke up until the point where he starts to electrocute Luke, nor is there any clear evidence that Luke should have seen him as such given what the audience knows Luke to know from watching the Original Trilogy. That being the case, Luke killing the Emperor is on very dubious moral grounds - the Emperor seems to be merely morally repugnant and corrosive, not a clear and present danger, and killing things that are morally repugnant but not immediately dangerous is not a moral act, at least in the context of modern morality.

[pendell]

...

Are we seriously arguing about whether it's morally justified to strike down the embodiment of evil in the GFFA? The man who overthrew the Republic? The man who issued Order 66? The man who built the Death Star, and when it was blown up built another one? The man who deceived the Separatist leaders into a galaxy-spanning war, and then had them all murdered once they had served their purpose? A man who, throughout the PT, ST, and OT, has been characterized by lies, deceits, and murder with no redeeming characteristics beyond a love of the opera?

The list of atrocities the Emperor was responsible for and would continue to be responsible for, left unchecked, is almost uncounted. I view killing him no different than I would if someone shot an axe murderer chasing their latest victim down the street, axe in hand.

...

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

...

Are we seriously arguing about whether it's morally justified to strike down the embodiment of evil in the GFFA? The man who overthrew the Republic? The man who issued Order 66? The man who built the Death Star, and when it was blown up built another one? The man who deceived the Separatist leaders into a galaxy-spanning war, and then had them all murdered once they had served their purpose? A man who, throughout the PT, ST, and OT, has been characterized by lies, deceits, and murder with no redeeming characteristics beyond a love of the opera?

The list of atrocities the Emperor was responsible for and would continue to be responsible for, left unchecked, is almost uncounted. I view killing him no different than I would if someone shot an axe murderer chasing their latest victim down the street, axe in hand.

...

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I don't think anybody is. The question is why luke would be striking him down, not whether he should be killed in the abstract. Which is i think the greater point being made: luke is not free to act as he wants to because of his strong connection to the force.

[pendell]

I don't think anybody is. The question is why luke would be striking him down, not whether he should be killed in the abstract. Which is i think the greater point being made: luke is not free to act as he wants to because of his strong connection to the force.

That's fair. The emotional state is closely linked to whether an action is light or dark side. I suppose that Luke would have to achieve a state of pure emotionless calm in order to strike down the Emperor and not fall because of it, but it doesn't really seem like there are many Jedi who can attain that level of detachment and calm. Yoda, perhaps. Certainly not Mace Windu, Qui-gonn, or Obi-Wan.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Bartmanhomer]

A.) My not knowing the entire script for Star Wars is a very big deal, thankyouverymuch.

2.) Djarin and Fett seem pretty finished with each other, and ended on good terms. I don't see any reason for them to fight at this time.

iii.) Fett's not Mandalorian.

Wait. Fett isn't a Mandalorian? So he's a great big phony.

[Psyren]

That's fair. The emotional state is closely linked to whether an action is light or dark side. I suppose that Luke would have to achieve a state of pure emotionless calm in order to strike down the Emperor and not fall because of it, but it doesn't really seem like there are many Jedi who can attain that level of detachment and calm. Yoda, perhaps. Certainly not Mace Windu, Qui-gonn, or Obi-Wan.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I always thought that was a very weird aspect of the Force.

1) Dude commits atrocities and will unfailingly continue to commit atrocities unless stopped.
2) You get mad because of all the atrocities.
3) Because you're mad, you now can't kill the dude who did the atrocities and will continue to do atrocities, because doing so will either (a) allow him to possess you(?) or (b) make you just as bad if not worse.
4) There is no other feasible way to stop the guy from doing the atrocities short of killing him.

Star Wars basically wrote itself into a corner with a setup this contrived. It resulted in every means of defeating Palpatine rely on the man himself becoming incredibly idiotic, which isn't satisfying for a villainous mastermind.

What Star Wars needed was another way to stop him that didn't result in either stupid behavior or massive inconsistencies. Both LotR and ATLA did this kind of dilemma far better.

[Peelee]

I always thought that was a very weird aspect of the Force.

1) Dude commits atrocities and will unfailingly continue to commit atrocities unless stopped.
2) You get mad because of all the atrocities.
3) Because you're mad, you now can't kill the dude who did the atrocities and will continue to do atrocities, because doing so will either (a) allow him to possess you(?) or (b) make you just as bad if not worse.
4) There is no other feasible way to stop the guy from doing the atrocities short of killing him.

Star Wars basically wrote itself into a corner with a setup this contrived. It resulted in every means of defeating Palpatine rely on the man himself becoming incredibly idiotic, which isn't satisfying for a villainous mastermind.

What Star Wars needed was another way to stop him that didn't result in either stupid behavior or massive inconsistencies. Both LotR and ATLA did this kind of dilemma far better.

Since they started introducing alternate Force religions in Legends, I chose to believe that was simply a Jedi/Sith belief, and did not necessarily have any grounding in reality.

For example, Anakin straight-up murdered an entire kindergarten class and yet was able to just say "oh ya know what I'ma be good now" and apparently make it so, so I ahve reason to doubt the Jedi authority on how stuff actually works.

[Psyren]

Since they started introducing alternate Force religions in Legends, I chose to believe that was simply a Jedi/Sith belief, and did not necessarily have any grounding in reality.

For example, Anakin straight-up murdered an entire kindergarten class and yet was able to just say "oh ya know what I'ma be good now" and apparently make it so, so I ahve reason to doubt the Jedi authority on how stuff actually works.

I will gladly accept a retcon or canon expansion here. Jedi and Sith both deal in absolutes and it's dumb.

[Fyraltari]

I'm not convinced killing a Sith in anger is a surefire way to the Darkness, either.

[Keltest]

Yoda and Palpatine both incorrectly believe that once you turn to the Dark Side you can never recover. Luke being able to surpass them by understanding that yes, you can get back up if you fall down is an important part of his triumph. Heck, pretty much all throughout episode 6 Luke is insistent that Vader can be redeemed, and that he's going to do it. Letting your emotions control you is bad and dangerous, but that doesnt mean you should be afraid of them.

[Mechalich]

I always thought that was a very weird aspect of the Force.

1) Dude commits atrocities and will unfailingly continue to commit atrocities unless stopped.
2) You get mad because of all the atrocities.
3) Because you're mad, you now can't kill the dude who did the atrocities and will continue to do atrocities, because doing so will either (a) allow him to possess you(?) or (b) make you just as bad if not worse.
4) There is no other feasible way to stop the guy from doing the atrocities short of killing him.

Star Wars basically wrote itself into a corner with a setup this contrived. It resulted in every means of defeating Palpatine rely on the man himself becoming incredibly idiotic, which isn't satisfying for a villainous mastermind.

What Star Wars needed was another way to stop him that didn't result in either stupid behavior or massive inconsistencies. Both LotR and ATLA did this kind of dilemma far better.

The key bit is that Jedi are supposed to bypass Step #2. Jedi are supposed to master their emotions - no be unfeeling, which is what Anakin mistakenly believed - but to reach an enlightened state where emotional input ceases to matter and only the guidance of the Force remains. This is a religious concept based on a specific set religious beliefs in a somewhat garbled presentation by Lucas.

Jedi can, and do (mostly in Legends), kill extremely powerful Sith without having any dark side issues. It's just that they have surpassed any feelings of anger towards their foes. Rebels, actually, has a number of examples of Jedi doing just this, particularly Obi-Wan killing Maul for the second time.

Edit: it's arguable that Luke does this in Return of the Jedi. That once he throws away his lightsaber he's discarded his hatred and if he was somehow given the chance to walk out and go through the whole sequence again he absolutely could strike Palpatine down in peace and clarity.

Since they started introducing alternate Force religions in Legends, I chose to believe that was simply a Jedi/Sith belief, and did not necessarily have any grounding in reality.

For example, Anakin straight-up murdered an entire kindergarten class and yet was able to just say "oh ya know what I'ma be good now" and apparently make it so, so I ahve reason to doubt the Jedi authority on how stuff actually works.

Legends Word of God - meaning specifically from Lucas himself - was that while no force tradition had a perfect understanding of the Force the Jedi were closer to the truth than anyone else. So there's really no getting around the strange aspect of the Force existing only in the moment.

In fairness though, Anakin's redemption of the second Death Star is supposed to have been this brutally difficult, never-happened-before, type of event. And it's possible that such a drastic reversal was always intended to demand the life of the person involved (reversing your ethical trajectory that hard can be imagined as turning a fighter jet too fast, the g-forces rip it apart). Legends creators compounded the problem by allowing entirely too many other people to return from way down in the dark hole - not just momentary lapses like Obi-Wan v Maul round one or even some of Luke's poor decisions in his early academy years - without any real consequence. Rather than extremely narrow and almost impossibly steep the road to redemption was made wide and flat. The Kyp Durron precedent, since I'm fairly certain he was the first chronological case of returning to the light and living after having committed some truly heinous crimes, was a terrible one.

[Kitten Champion]

Luke killed how many people on the Death Star?

But killing the man who ordered its creation and use, as well established the whole empire to which such violence and terror is casually used as the chief form of control and legitimacy, that's a spiritual matter you have to meditate on?

Again, Psyren brings up the point I usual make with the ATLA reference. If - like Aang - your protagonist has committed to a pacifist ideology and the conflict is whether you can truly maintain that in the face of someone you know is going to unleash untold death and suffering which you can stop, then that's internally consistent. Had Aang routinely drowned, buried, crushed, choked, and impaled Fire Nation soldiers in his path then in the face of the Fire Lord decided to pull a "but am I doing the right thing?" then -- screw that noise.

[Sapphire Guard]

Uh, end of season 1?

Notably, remember what happens when Luke tries to cut Palpatine down. Vader blocks it. Palpatine doesn't actually intend to sit there and die. If that was the end goal, he would have let that strike land.

I don't think Yoda and Palpatine believe that no one can return from the Dark Side, they believe that Vader can't, and they have good reasons to believe that. They saw him kill children, Obi Wan saw him choke unconscious his pregnant wife when she questioned him about killing those younglings. If he was going to turn back, he would have by now.

Supposing Luke kills Vader in the end. Palpatine's still standing there, fully capable of defending himself, and his guards are one call for help away. He's not in danger, he just gets to laugh at Luke for killing his own father just because he was angry and Palpatine told him to.

[Keltest]

Luke killed how many people on the Death Star?

But killing the man who ordered its creation and use, as well established the whole empire to which such violence and terror is casually used as the chief form of control and legitimacy, that's a spiritual matter you have to meditate on?

Besides the fact that Luke wasnt remotely trained with the Force at that point, there continues to be a difference (to the Force) between a kill made in hatred and malice versus one made out of necessity and detachment.

Had Luke given into the Emperor's goading and actually attacked him, he would be giving into all his negative emotions and letting them drive his actions. It doesnt matter that he's doing it for a good reason, because once you start letting hatred and rage dictate your behavior, you start doing nasty things for bad reasons. Vader, case in point, got angry with his wife and murdered her in a spur of the moment reflexive decision based on those negative feelings.

[Kitten Champion]

Besides the fact that Luke wasnt remotely trained with the Force at that point, there continues to be a difference (to the Force) between a kill made in hatred and malice versus one made out of necessity and detachment.

Except the whole "Use the Force, Luke" thing. His dead mentor, encouraging him on from beyond the grave, to kill countless people, with the aid of the Force.

and yes, that's why the Force is an abysmal fictional concept.

Had Luke given into the Emperor's goading and actually attacked him, he would be giving into all his negative emotions and letting them drive his actions. It doesnt matter that he's doing it for a good reason, because once you start letting hatred and rage dictate your behavior, you start doing nasty things for bad reasons. Vader, case in point, got angry with his wife and murdered her in a spur of the moment reflexive decision based on those negative feelings.

Except Anakin Skywalker's redemption - and what restored him to the Force - is entirely based on killing the man who was torturing his son in front of him out of sheer anger. Being angry at injustice and taking up arms is the exact thing the Rebellion is built upon, it's the thing the heroes are doing and justifiably so.

There is a definite difference between accidentally killing your wife in a fit of anger and killing a tyrant responsible for the deaths and enslavement of countless sentient beings of whom you've been engaged in a brutal civil way for most of your adult life, and that I have to make that argument is why the Force is an abysmal fictional concept.

[dancrilis]

Notably, remember what happens when Luke tries to cut Palpatine down. Vader blocks it. Palpatine doesn't actually intend to sit there and die. If that was the end goal, he would have let that strike land.

I have kindof wondered if Vader saved The Emperor there or if he saved Luke there.

[Keltest]

Except the whole "Use the Force, Luke" thing. His dead mentor, encouraging him on from beyond the grave, to kill countless people, with the aid of the Force.

and yes, that's why the Force is an abysmal fictional concept.

Luke wasnt trying to kill the people on the Death Star, specifically. He just wanted to stop it from destroying Yavin and, by extension, other worlds.

Except Anakin Skywalker's redemption - and what restored him to the Force - is entirely based on killing the man who was torturing his son in front of him out of sheer anger. Being angry at injustice and taking up arms is the exact thing the Rebellion is built upon, it's the thing the heroes are doing and justifiably so.

There is a definite difference between accidentally killing your wife in a fit of anger and killing a tyrant responsible for the deaths and enslavement of countless sentient beings of whom you've been engaged in a brutal civil way for most of your adult life, and that I have to make that argument is why the Force is an abysmal fictional concept.

Anakin was (nominally) acting out of love in that scene, not hatred. Anakin loved his family, or at least the idea of his family, and you can see as far back as ESB that he is going very far out of his way to avoid doing things that would deprive him of that family, before he even actually meets Luke.

[Mechalich]

Except the whole "Use the Force, Luke" thing. His dead mentor, encouraging him on from beyond the grave, to kill countless people, with the aid of the Force.

and yes, that's why the Force is an abysmal fictional concept.

Obi-Wan also tells Luke to 'let go.' This is important, because the ultimate goal is transcendence, of transitioning from a being of flesh and blood to a 'luminous' state where one serves is in union with the light side. Luke destroying the Death Star involves pinging up against this state for a very brief moment.

Yes, around a million people die (the numbers from the various sources on how many people were on the Death Star vary, but all are between 1 and 2 million in total), but at the same time the moon of Yavin IV, representing an entire biosphere, is spared. Also, the DS-I battle station is clearly a military target and it's destruction is, by any understanding of military law, perfectly justified. In fact, it's simply a real world military maneuver scaled up - I'm going to avoid direct historical parallels because of forum rules and just suggest that the best (probably only it's not actually a good movie) reason to watch 2019's Midway is to note the countless Star Wars parallels.

Except Anakin Skywalker's redemption - and what restored him to the Force - is entirely based on killing the man who was torturing his son in front of him out of sheer anger. Being angry at injustice and taking up arms is the exact thing the Rebellion is built upon, it's the thing the heroes are doing and justifiably so.

No, Vader intervenes to save Luke, he's motivated not by his hatred of Palpatine but by his love of his son.* He's not even really trying to kill the Emperor initially, Vader is fully capable of crushing Palpatine's skull by smashing his cybernetically enhanced fist into the back of his head, he just picks him up and tosses him out of the way.

*Ninja'd by Keltest

There is a definite difference between accidentally killing your wife in a fit of anger and killing a tyrant responsible for the deaths and enslavement of countless sentient beings of whom you've been engaged in a brutal civil way for most of your adult life, and that I have to make that argument is why the Force is an abysmal fictional concept.

The Force is a strange concept. It is an explicitly religious construct - Lucas has openly stated that part of what he was trying to do with Star Wars was to increase spiritualism - and therefore difficult to discuss here because of forum rules. It's not terrible - various material in both EUs has managed to produce a fairly consistent theory of how it works, certainly a more complete one than for most fictional religions - it's just really bizarre. Critically it does not work when examined from a wholly secular worldview, but that's, well, the point. It's also what makes the Force actually interesting. If you strip the religious elements out of the Force you're left with the biotics of Mass Effect, which are boring and completely unessential to the Mass Effect story.

[Clertar]

I think that there are two pretty different versions of the Force.

The Force in the OT, before the retcons in the prequel trilogy, is more akin to a spiritual illumination than a superpower. The "force powers" that we see are not like D&D spells in a finite list that the Jedi train to use, but are a side effect of the Jedi having achieved this state of being one with the Force.

The Force in the prequel trilogy and aftterwards became something like a superpower that, for in-universe reasons, was tied to a specific culture. The main role of the Force becomes being an advantage to using violence, and having access to a set of predetermined Jedi tricks.

When thinking about the final confrontation in the OT (let's remember that this is before any of the content revealed---or retconned---in the prequel trilogy), it's normal that some things clash, as it's the OT approach to the Force being examined with a mental framework of the PT approach. That's what makes Yoda in the prequel trilogy so utterly jarring. I think that the character of Li Mu Bai in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is the closest that we've seen to an OT-style Jedi in their prime.

In The Return of the Jedi, there is the paradox of the pacifist approach of the Jedi, and the violence-focused approached of those Jedi that have been corrupted by the Dark Side. Luke realizes that he cannot out-Dark Side either Darth Vader or the Emperor without falling to the Dark Side himself. He can only vanquish the Dark Side by using his serenity and reassurance in the Force, and this is when he starts to win. He is able to bring his father back from the Dark Side and he, in turn, is able to face and defeat the power that corrupted him to begin with---the Emperor.


The Last Jedi tried to shift the view of the Force back to the original OT approach, I think. With a more spiritual and phylosophical Force. We see Luke winning a fight by again refusing to face the Dark Side with violence. I wouldn't have minded if that line had been followed by future installments, I find it way more interesting than the Jedi being somewhat mystical X-Men with a set of same-y psychic powers.