Is it REALLY evil???

[Malifice]

If so, why did he strangle her? That's a pretty dang evil thing to do, no matter how you slice it.

Because he had already turned to the dark side.

You may not have noticed the glowing yellow eyes in the scene prior.

Force users are closer to [the cosmic evil]. They do too many evil acts [justification be damned] the eventually turn to the dark side [become a thrall to cosmic evil].

'Cosmic evil' literally flows through Anakin now. He is evil. Hatred, anger, fear.

Remember force users arent like everyone else. You still get a Dark side point for doing evil stuff if you're not force sensitive, but you cant actively call on this cosmic evil as an energy source unless you're force sensitive.

Ultimately force sensitives who call on or empower cosmic evil via acts of evil, become dependent on cosmic evil, and it corrupts them and dominates them. Its only though a supreme act of will [in the RPGs via an act of dramatic heroism, involving self sacrifice, and in pursuit of galactic good] that they can turn away from the dark side and shut out this cosmic evil.

[smcmike]

I partly agree, but you're also naive.

No need to get personal, Mal! You seem to have enjoyed these movies, but I don’t think disliking them makes me naive!

His actions were evil. Not his motivations.

The second part of this doesn’t seem true. From what I recall, his first truly evil act (“I killed them all!”) was motivated by rage and a desire for revenge.

But, again, my entire point is that those movies were turds, and that basing your arguments on turds can make for squishy arguments.

[Malifice]

In Star wars the dark side is 'cosmic evil' (anger, hatred, killing, harming others, destruction). The light side is 'cosmic good' (life, creation, peace, calm, defense).

Non force sensitives are still affected by the dark side (just like they are affected by the force generally as it flows through all things). In RPGs they can gain dark side points for acts of evil. Enough DSP (or evil acts) makes them evil.

Force sensitives can actually manipulate this cosmic force (including the dark side) flowing through everything, and they're more susceptible to it. Simply using the force while angry or afraid gets the DSP (accidental use of the dark side). Intentional use (channeling it via force lightning) draws them closer to the dark side rapidly.

Once a force sensitive falls to the darkside, they're literally a living conduit for cosmic evil energy. It corrupts them, physically, mentally and emotionally, and cuts off or heavily impedes their connection to the light side.

[Malifice]

The second part of this doesn’t seem true. From what I recall, his first truly evil act (“I killed them all!”) was motivated by rage and a desire for revenge.

Of course. But he also saw them as animals and not people; specifically as murderous dangerous animals. And he slaughtered them like animals.

To his mind he was doing an act of good. Vengeance for his mother was a good thing. They got what they deserved. They wont harm anyone ever again.

Heck; Gary Gygax would also say this was an act of LG (He was the one that said 'Nits make lice' remember?).

Many on this forum also think it was a good act.

It obviously wasnt. It was an act of mass murder and genocide. It was evil, and clearly portrayed as such. But it just goes to show how dangerous subjective justifications can be.

Note: What is far more worrying is Padme. Anakin literally confesses his genocide and mass child murder about 3 days into his relationship with Padme... and she has nothing to say to him about this, other than to be sympathetic to him with a: 'You'll be OK, forget about it.'

It was such a jarring betrayal of her character. I'd like to think if I was 3 days into seeing someone, and they confessed to murdering a bunch of kids I'd get as far as ****ing possible away from them.

But, again, my entire point is that those movies were turds, and that basing your arguments on turds can make for squishy arguments.

On this we agree!

[Aett_Thorn]

This argument will really go nowhere, and is completely absurd in the first place. Just let this thread die.

[Contrast]

1) Kill vader (evil act) gain a DSP, and turn to the dark side.
2) Refuse to engage in an act of evil (toss his light-saber and inform the Emperor that he has failed).

He does the latter, knowing that it means his certain death. He does it knowing it condemns the Alliance, and his friends on Endor to a certain death.

He does it because he is not evil. The choice is his, and when the Emperor gives him the choice of [do evil and possibly save your friends, and end Vaders evil] or [do good and die, along with everyone else]he chooses the good option.

Honestly this has always been one of the things that bugged me most about the movies. I'm not saying Luke should have killed Vader, but throwing away his lightsaber and giving up the fight? That's not good. That's dumb (and arguably a betrayal of the people currently fighting and dying while that discussion is taking place). I mean...Luke was a soldier in a war. He'd already killed a lot of people to overthrow the Empire. He had personally killed hundreds of thousands of people when he blew up the Death Star but apparently suddenly even offering any resistance at all was evil? What?

Of course this may be in part because, in the context of the setting light =/= good and dark =/= evil (or at least not how I imagine most people typically describe them). I don't think most people would describe falling madly in love with someone as evil yet its much more closely aligned with the passion of the dark side than the placidity of the light side. I personally don't really see a solider laying down his weapon and leaving his comrades to die in the middle of a fight as a good act but it was clearly a light side one.

[Malifice]

This argument will really go nowhere, and is completely absurd in the first place. Just let this thread die.

The thread can be summarized as a bunch of people advocating a position that blatantly and unambiguously evil acts [child murder, cannibalism, wanton slaughter, genocide, torture, rape] can be 'not morally evil' as long as [the murderer] has a good reason to do it.

Several people were even arguing that in a universe containing 'objective cosmic good' that [Running around axe murdering and torturing an orphanage full of children and nuns at the request of the Devil] 'isnt evil' as long as you purport to have 'a good reason' to do it.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

[smcmike]

The thread can be summarized as a bunch of people advocating a position that blatantly and unambiguously evil acts [child murder, cannibalism, wanton slaughter, genocide, torture, rape] can be 'not morally evil' as long as [the murderer] has a good reason to do it.

Several people were even arguing that in a universe containing 'objective cosmic good' that [Running around axe murdering and torturing an orphanage full of children and nuns at the request of the Devil] 'isnt evil' as long as you purport to have 'a good reason' to do it.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

More recently, this thread appears to be one person repeatedly claiming that other people were making these arguments while arguing with people who were not making anything even remotely similar to these arguments.

To answer your question, I assume it’s because you enjoy it.

[MadBear]

The thread can be summarized as a bunch of people advocating a position that blatantly and unambiguously evil acts [child murder, cannibalism, wanton slaughter, genocide, torture, rape] can be 'not morally evil' as long as [the murderer] has a good reason to do it.

Several people were even arguing that in a universe containing 'objective cosmic good' that [Running around axe murdering and torturing an orphanage full of children and nuns at the request of the Devil] 'isnt evil' as long as you purport to have 'a good reason' to do it.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm assuming you're just purposefully misrepresenting others positions....

[Malifice]

Honestly this has always been one of the things that bugged me most about the movies. I'm not saying Luke should have killed Vader, but throwing away his lightsaber and giving up the fight? That's not good.

It was good. It was an act of heroic self sacrifice to save his fathers life.

Luke wasn't there to kill the Emperor (or anyone else). He was there to save his fathers life (and soul) and redeem him. It was save his father, or be destroyed.

He told his father as much on Endor.

By doing what he did, he was showing his father that the Emperor can be defeated simply be being defied.

Ultimately this led the Emperor to try and kill (the now) unarmed Luke. This evil act by the Emperor, in turn motivated Anakin to complete an act of heroic self sacrifice himself in defense of his son, by pegging the Emperor down the shaft.

If Luke had have attacked the Emperor he would have died, and the rebellion and his friends with him (he stood no chance against the Emperor). Instead he did the 'good' thing and demonstrated (to the Emperor; but especially to Anakin) that he was prepared to die, in order to save the life of his father.

'You have failed your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.'

Those words, and those two acts of heroic self sacrifice (by Luke, and then by Vader) ultimately saved the galaxy.

[2D8HP]

....End the galactic war. Bring peace and order to the galaxy. End the bureaucracy and red tape of the old regime. Save his wife and unborn children. Become the most powerful Force user in the galaxy.

These are pretty darn strong motivations.

Note how none of them are inherently evil. Most are even noble in fact. But its how he chose to achieve these goals that led him to evil.

His actions were evil. Not his motivations.

(Full disclosure, I haven't seen any of the post Return of the Jedi "Star Wars" films)

Personally I regard two of Anakin's motivations that you listed as Evil.

Seriously Evil!

Proposal: We let this thread die.

Can I get a second?

Nay!

Not unless we move the discussion to the Alignments, thought and choices? thread, which may be a more appropriately titled thread for what we're doing, but it's in the "General Role-playing" Forum instead of in the WotC 5e D&D Sub-Forum, so here we are.

Seriously. Why do I bother?

Instinct?

For fun?

You seem down.

If your pro-good here's a song for you:

a song for you



If on the other hand you league with evil

there's a song for that!

Or maybe you prefer
a classic!

[Malifice]

I'm sorry, but at this point I'm assuming you're just purposefully misrepresenting others positions....

This thread has very clearly voiced opinions that [intentions and justification] can render [child murder, torture, genocide, infanticide, cannibalism] 'not acts of evil'.

They clearly are acts of heinous evil, that no truly [objectively] good person would willfully engage in.

An objectively evil or the occasional neutral person could or would engage in those acts, almost certainly justifying the acts by reference to a 'greater good'.

Or to put it another way; if you can say to yourself 'Murdering children and torturing nuns is morally justified when done for the greater good' you dont have 'Good' written on your character sheet anywhere.

My LE Vengance Paladin most certainly would engage in torture and murder for a greater good. Its part of his oath to do so.

[Malifice]

Personally I regard two of Anakin's motivations that you listed as Evil.

Which of these motivations is 'evil':

1) Save his wifes life
2) Save his unborn child(ren)s life
3) End a galactic war costing billions of lives
4) Bring order to a dysfunctional galactic government
5) Become the best you can be at your job

I dont see any of them as evil. Most are even noble, or at worst selfish. And in any event, they're just motivations.

Its the acts that he chooses to engage in to pursue those goals that are evil; not the reasons (motivation) why he does them.

Compare Luke v Vader. They share the same (or similar) motivations and goals.

Luke also wants to save a loved ones life; his fathers. He goes about it via an act of self sacrifice in the face of overwhelming evil. Vader goes about it by murdering the entire Jedi order.

Luke also wants to end a galactic civil war. He (again) goes about it via an act of self sacrifice in the face of overwhelming evil. Vader goes about it by murdering Dooku, the entire Jedi order and Separatist high command.

Luke wants to bring about a change in government. He (once again) goes about it via an act of self sacrifice in the face of overwhelming evil. Vader (once again) goes about it by murdering the entire Jedi order.

See the difference? Motivation, justification, and goals has nothing to do with it. Only acts matter.

[smcmike]

It was good. It was an act of heroic self sacrifice to save his fathers life.

Luke wasn't there to kill the Emperor (or anyone else). He was there to save his fathers life (and soul) and redeem him. It was save his father, or be destroyed.

This is true.

(I’m willing to discuss these movies, since I actually enjoyed then & have seen them more than once).

If Luke had have attacked the Emperor he would have died, and the rebellion and his friends with him (he stood no chance against the Emperor). Instead he did the 'good' thing and demonstrated (to the Emperor; but especially to Anakin) that he was prepared to die, in order to save the life of his father.

'You have failed your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.'

Those words, and those two acts of heroic self sacrifice (by Luke, and then by Vader) ultimately saved the galaxy.

A couple of points here.

1. Luke did attack the Emperor.

2. He also attacked Vader, reluctantly, after attempting not to. After essentially defeating him, though, he refused to kill him.

3. As you said, Luke wasn’t there for any purpose beyond saving his father’s soul. I’m a little unclear how his actions on the Death Star contributed in any way to saving the Galaxy, though, beyond perhaps distracting the Emperor and Vader. He didn’t blow up the Death Star and save the galaxy. Lando Calrissian did that.

[Friv]

Which of these motivations is 'evil':

1) Save his wifes life
2) Save his unborn child(ren)s life
3) End a galactic war costing billions of lives
4) Bring order to a dysfunctional galactic government
5) Become the best you can be at your job

Anakin's motives were corrupt from minute one.

He didn't want to save his wife and child. He wanted to not lose them. He didn't want to end the war, he wanted to end it on his terms. He didn't want to become the best, he wanted to be acknowledged as the best. (I will give you 'bring order'.)

He was acting out of fear from the beginning, and fear makes you do stupid things. That's why when he learned that Palpatine started the war, he didn't care. That's why when he believed that Padme had betrayed him, he turned on her. He slaughtered the Sand People for taking his mother away from him, not because he thought they would hurt someone else. He pursued Padme relentlessly because he wanted her, and to hell with his oaths.

The whole point of the Star Wars prequels, as wobbly as they are, is that motivations are critical. Obi-Wan kills tons of people, but he does it out of regretful necessity, not out of fear or anger, so he never falls to the Dark Side. Anakin makes most of him major decisions out of fear and pride, and thus each one leads him down the road to ruin. Mace Windu's critical mistake is letting his fear of the Emperor blind him to Anakin's moral dilemma, leading him to confront him in his chambers instead of assembling a group to stop him properly.

[2D8HP]

....End the galactic war. Bring peace and order to the galaxy. End the bureaucracy and red tape of the old regime. Save his wife and unborn children. Become the most powerful Force user in the galaxy.....

Which of these motivations is 'evil':

1) Save his wifes life
2) Save his unborn child(ren)s life
3) End a galactic war costing billions of lives
4) Bring order to a dysfunctional galactic government
5) Become the best you can be at your job

I dont see any of them as evil....

By signifigantly rewording the last two motivations you have changed them enough to make them not seem evil, in fact you've strongly changed the description and goals of those motivations

Neat trick! .

...Luke wasn’t there for any purpose beyond saving his father’s soul....

Yeah I agree with David Brin on the dubious ethics and of the "Star Wars" films (he prefers Trek).

If you want films with better morals, off the top of my head BIlly Budd, Casablanca, The Grapes of Wrath, The Story of G.I. Joe and To Kill a Mocking Bird are far better, even the grey morals of The Maltese Falcon has a better way of acting with honor.

Luke in Jedi is disgusting in his selfishness.

Sometimes the "greater good" is what's good (as Rick in Casablanca learns).

But when I take those "Alignment tests" while I've had the results of variously Chaotic Good, Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Neutral, most commonly I come out as Lawful Neutral, so maybe Luke is better than I think.

No he isn't, he's a myopic jerk.

Hates Skywalkers forever!

[Kantaki]

(I will give you 'bring order'.)

Bring his order.

[Malifice]

1. Luke did attack the Emperor.

By giving into his fear and anger.

'I am unarmed. Defenseless. Pick up your weapon and strike me down!'

[Luke has a clear moment of doubt. Wracked with emotion he pauses.. then goes for his saber; his attack blocked by Vader before striking the Emperor. The Emperor doesnt even flinch; instead... he laughs]

Clearly depicted as evil. Luke overwhelmed by negative emotions, makes a mistake. He gives into his fear and despite trying hard not to. The Emperor is never in any actual danger.

It's all going exactly as he has forseen.

2. He also attacked Vader, reluctantly, after attempting not to. After essentially defeating him, though, he refused to kill him.

No he doesnt attack Vader (at first). He fights defensively, holding back and not trying to strike Vader, but trying to fend him off and convert him to the light side. Once he gets a chance, he ****s off and hides. Once Vader trolls him about Leia and Obi Wan (I'm coming after your sister once you die. Your noble self sacrifice - and Obi wans noble self sacrifice - will be in vain) he again gives into his anger; this time not holding back at all.

He's holding back trying to turn Vader, just like Vader was trying to do in return (and in the prior movie).

In Empire, Luke is trying his best to defeat Vader on Bespin. If you watch Empire closely, you'll notice that Vader uses his light saber one handed pretty much the whole fight (he never does so again or before). He isnt even trying to hit Luke, just to maneuver him around the place and troll him.

He doesnt want him dead. He wants him turned to the dark side.

This changes when Luke gets in a lucky glancing shot on Vaders shoulder. Vader then gerts angry, stops messing with him and goes two handed, and about 3 seconds later, Luke is hanging from a ledge, FUBAR and missing a hand.

3. As you said, Luke wasn’t there for any purpose beyond saving his father’s soul. I’m a little unclear how his actions on the Death Star contributed in any way to saving the Galaxy, though, beyond perhaps distracting the Emperor and Vader. He didn’t blow up the Death Star and save the galaxy. Lando Calrissian did that.

The Emperor was only on the Death Star to await Lukes arrival, not to oversee its construction personally, or to watch the rebellion be destroyed. He explicitly told Vader this, and scolded him for not waiting on Endor for Luke to hand himself over (as he knew he would).

Remember; Palpatine didnt travel to the Death star after intentionally letting the death star plans fall into the hands of the Rebellion and luring them to the Death Star and Endor (where he knew Luke would be), just to destroy the Rebellion (he doesnt need to be there for that) but simply so he could destroy them in front of Luke to turn him to evil. This isnt a spur of the moment decision by the Emperor; its something he's been planning for decades.

The Emperor didnt even bother to watch the destruction of the Jedi order and that was a much bigger deal.

It was never about destroying the rebellion. It was about turning Luke. That was why he let the plans fall into the rebellions hands, that was why he was there on the Death Star, and that was why the fleet didn't wipe out the rebellion fleet as soon as they arrived. Remember, he even ordered the entire Imperial fleet to hold back, while he waited for Luke to arrive. Just so he could troll him better.

Luke had more than enough time to escape the death star after the Emperor died (even stopping to have a chat with Vader before he carked it as well). Pretty sure the Emperor could have made it off in time as well, Calrissian or no Calrissian.

It wasnt the destruction of the Death Star 2 that ended the war; it was the death of the Emperor.

[Friv]

Bring his order.

Well, mostly he wants to bring other people's order, because he's a follower at heart. An angry, pouty follower, but a follower. Anakin doesn't really like to be the big-picture guy; he is most suited to squad command, where he has freedom to enact other people's plans with whatever methods he prefers.

I mean, yes, you can make an argument that bringing order to government is not inherently a good goal (I probably would), especially when it seems to be more important than bringing hope or freedom. But it's not inherently evil, either.

[Malifice]

Well, mostly he wants to bring other people's order, because he's a follower at heart. An angry, pouty follower, but a follower. Anakin doesn't really like to be the big-picture guy; he is most suited to squad command, where he has freedom to enact other people's plans with whatever methods he prefers.

I mean, yes, you can make an argument that bringing order to government is not inherently a good goal (I probably would), especially when it seems to be more important than bringing hope or freedom. But it's not inherently evil, either.

As a Jedi, he was was CG.

As a Sith he was CE. Just a CE servant of a very LE regime. People often mix the two up for some reason.

One of my big bugbears is when people call him 'Lawful'. He isnt (and never was). He never gave a **** about tradition, honor, loyalty or codes (of any kind) and did his own thing, living above and outside the law. He was unpredictable, capricious, and unconventional. He kept his word rarely (and only when it suited him) betrayed everyone he ever loved and cared for (every master he ever had, every government he ever worked for, his own family).

And thats as a Jedi and as a Sith.

[2D8HP]

Bring his order.

Damn straight!

Put all Skywalker's against the wall!

It was never about destroying the rebellion. It was about turning Luke.

Yeah Return of the Jedi left a bad taste.

"Oh the struggles of common people don't matter, what's important is the interpersonal relationships and psyches of a few with supernatural powers".

Fooey!



And you know what also grinds my gears?

Lord of the Rings!


That ponce Aragorn.

Thinks he should be King does he?

Well la-di-da!

Same goes for Frodo and Gandalf.

I respect Faramir more.

Mayor Sam Gamgee is the only true hero of the lot of them!

[smcmike]

By giving into his fear and anger.

I love how you recite a scene we’ve all seen 100+ times, as if it’s news.

No he doesnt attack Vader (at first).

I’m not sure how this is meant to be inconsistent with “He attacked Vader,... after trying not to.” He defeated Vader while overcome with rage, then refused to kill him.

It was never about destroying the rebellion. It was about turning Luke. That was why he let the plans fall into the rebellions hands, that was why he was there on the Death Star, and that was why the fleet didn't wipe out the rebellion fleet as soon as they arrived. Remember, he even ordered the entire Imperial fleet to hold back, while he waited for Luke to arrive. Just so he could troll him better.

Right, because the Emperor is an inherently stupid character, who only exists as a cheesy morality test for Luke. I’m fine with that - the movies are great because of their cheesy soap opera elements, not in spite of them - but his “plan” to turn Luke never made even the slightest lick of sense.

Luke had more than enough time to escape the death star after the Emperor died (even stopping to have a chat with Vader before he carked it as well). Pretty sure the Emperor could have made it off in time as well, Calrissian or no Calrissian.

It wasnt the destruction of the Death Star 2 that ended the war; it was the death of the Emperor.

These are fair points, though destruction of the Death Star was a pretty major accomplishment, and Luke had basically nothing to do with it. It also isn’t clear to me that the war ever ended.

"Oh the struggles of common people don't matter, what's important is the interpersonal relationships and psyches of a few with supernatural powers".

Mayor Sam Gamgee is the only true hero of the lot of them!

Indeed! Well said. The rebellion is no revolution - it’s just family dispute between monarchs and wizards.

As someone who is frequently called upon to provide stories to a five year old girl, the struggle with princesses and their special fates is real.

[Malifice]

I’m not sure how this is meant to be inconsistent with “He attacked Vader,... after trying not to.” He defeated Vader while overcome with rage, then refused to kill him.

He didnt go there to attack Vader or the Emperor and was trying not to, going as far as hiding from him and refusing to fight.

It was only Vader sucking him in that led him to give into his anger and fight.

He stopped before it was too late, and decided self sacrifice was the better option.

Like what Obi Wan did before him.

Right, because the Emperor is an inherently stupid character, who only exists as a cheesy morality test for Luke.

Yes. That's expressly his plan. Its what he has forseen. It is Lukes destiny.

Everything that happens in 1-6 happens according to the design of the Emperor. Right up until Vader pegs him down the shaft, fulfilling his destiny and bringing balance to the force.

These are fair points, though destruction of the Death Star was a pretty major accomplishment, and Luke had basically nothing to do with it. It also isn’t clear to me that the war ever ended.

Canon is that after the death of the Emperor, the Empire it fell apart with infighting, until finally defeated at the battle of Jakku, forcing the Imperial remnants to sign the Concordance, and flee to the unknown regions and Deep core. Legends canon goes further and states the Emperor was holding the fleet together using a form of Battle Meditation to coordinate everything (and not just rule by fear). When he died, they fell apart.

[smcmike]

He didnt go there to attack Vader or the Emperor and was trying not to, going as far as hiding from him and refusing to fight.

It was only Vader sucking him in that led him to give into his anger and fight.

He stopped before it was too late, and decided self sacrifice was the better option.

Like what Obi Wan did before him.

Yes. We know, Mal. Why do you keep repeating things as if you are arguing against something?

Yes. That's expressly his plan. Its what he has forseen. It is Lukes destiny.

Everything that happens in 1-6 happens according to the design of the Emperor. Right up until Vader pegs him down the shaft, fulfilling his destiny and bringing balance to the force.

Yeah, his plan is bollocks. Maybe he foresaw it, but that doesn’t excuse how stupid it was.

[2D8HP]

...I love how you recite a scene we’ve all seen 100+ times, as if it’s news.....

Not me.

I saw Star Wars 9 times total in 1977 and 1978, I saw Empire Strikes Back three times, but Return of the Jedi?

Once was enough.

....It also isn’t clear to me that the war ever ended.

Very good point, the Roman Empire out-lived Augustus Caesar.

---

You know what I'd like, would be a "genre" story without chosen one's.

No Aragorn's, or Skywalker's with snowflake "destinies", just a common people "band of brothers" full of good Sam Gamgee's and Captain John H. Miller's defeating "Dark Lords".

Why isn't that story told?

The early Guards books by Pratchett seemed to almost be like that, but then Sam Vimes was Marty Stew'd and superpowered up making Snuff a book I just couldn't bare to finish.

Magic has it's place.

In the setting and at the end of a sword!

[Waterdeep Merch]

Star Wars snip

Star Wars isn't a great example for universal good and evil, for several reasons.

1.) The dark side isn't evil, and the light side isn't good. The dark side is emotion, the light side is mindfulness, or possibly will. And according to some beliefs in the setting, both are corruptions of the 'true' Force. In fact, the first dark side Jedi were incredibly tragic figures that were hunted down and persecuted by light side Jedi during the first schism, with the original dark Jedi, Xendor, being the one that tried suing for peace over the increasingly militant Jedi Order.

2.) If the trailers are any indication, the above views on the Force might become very much canon in episode VIII.

3.) Anakin was being corrupted by one of the best chess masters in the setting. It wasn't some innate magnetism from the dark side that made Anakin evil, it was the clever manipulations of Palpatine. Asajj, despite forcing Anakin to rely on dark side powers, had no ability to turn him evil nor keep him smothered in the dark side.

4.) Speaking of, both Anakin and Luke managed to dip dark side without fully losing control. The real reason the dark side can be dangerous is that the emotions you carry with you into a fight are liable to be the worst ones- anger, fear, and hatred. The Jedi principles of mindfulness can help dispel these emotions, but the fact of the matter is that for all the talk on the spiral of the dark side, it is fully possible to drink very deep from that well and still return. Remember that the Jedi Order is incredibly biased against Bodan, the dark side of the Force.

5.) With the newest canon, the dark side and the light side both come from the Family. Both are needed, in unity, to achieve true peace and happiness. You cannot argue that this means you need an equal amount of good and evil to achieve goodness, that makes absolutely zero sense. Instead, it insinuates, and was shown, that the dark side has its positive qualities just as the light side has its negative ones. Only in balance is the Force at peace.

This is besides the point of the argument, but Anakin's fall is a poor example of universal good and evil. Especially considering he was redeemed by a Luke that had just used the dark side of the Force for the first time. He wasn't doing the right thing by not striking down the Emperor- he was hoping that his father could step back from the brink.

Also, as presented, Vader's last act against Emperor was fueled by the dark side, not the light. It was raw emotion that gave him that strength.

[smcmike]

Not me.

I saw Star Wars 9 times total in 1977 and 1978, I saw Empire Strikes Back three times, but Return of the Jedi?

Once was enough.




Very good point, the Roman Empire out-lived Augustus Caesar.

---

You know what I'd like, would be a "genre" story without chosen one's.

No Aragorn's, or Skywalker's with snowflake "destinies", just a common people "band of brothers" full of good Sam Gamgee's and Captain John H. Miller's defeating "Dark Lords".

Why isn't that story told?

The early Guards books by Pratchett seemed to almost be like that, but then Sam Vimes was Marty Stew'd and superpowered up making Snuff a book I just couldn't bare to finish.

Magic has it's place.

In the setting and at the end of a sword!

The problem is that it’s real hard to hang a story around a group of characters who never accomplish anything, and if you know from the start that the protagonist is going to accomplish something, they’ve got a special destiny, even if they don’t know it.

The best example of this tension is, of course, GoT. GRRM does great work subverting the expectations of epic fantasy for quite a while, but that’s mostly just obfuscation. The actual heroes, and their special destinies, have now come to the fore.

Of course, I don’t much care for them, just as nobody much liked Luke, or Frodo. Maybe the bland special destiny character is just the price you have to pay to get Han Solo and Sam Gamgee and the Hound.

[Dr.Samurai]

Of course it has to do with human (and alien) morality. You only fall to the dark side if you do evil things. And even evil people are capable of turning from the Dark side and being redeemed (as Anakin ultimately was).

I'm not necessarily responding to this directly Malifice, but using it to springboard another thought. This is more related to the "fall from grace" style of thinking referenced by Tanarii earlier in the discussion.

Does Anakin redeem himself with this one act? He betrayed his Order and murdered children. And then at the end he killed the Emperor. I think it's fair to say that he is probably the only one, at the time, able to defeat the Emperor, and that, in defeating the Emperor he changed the course of the galaxy for the better (let's ignore the Expanded Universe for now). That's trillions of lives impacted.

I'm curious about this because I *do* think evil actions weigh more than good actions. Maybe not purposely, but if I'm being honest it does mean more to me if someone does something evil than if they do something good. I'm not sure if that's because I take good for granted as what we should aspire to, but if I give it some thought I think that's where I lean. As an example, I have a hard time getting over Jaime pushing Bran out of the window in GoT. Not that I think we should ignore it, but as Jaime moves along this arc of redemption, it makes me wonder what it would take to redeem himself. (And to add some context, I don't hate Jaime. I'm hoping that he and the Hound will be the heroes of the War for the Dawn.)

So with Vader, he's the big bad of all big bads. And he ends up killing the Emperor to save his son. Does that redeem him? His spirit is at the party yucking it up with Yoda, Ben, and Luke. There's a sense that this was destined, so you could look it at is everyone simply played the role that they were meant to.

So what is everyone's thoughts on redemption?

This argument will really go nowhere, and is completely absurd in the first place. Just let this thread die.

Aett, go find a thread that you like and participate there . Yes, the OP is a troll post, but some of us don't mind being goaded into discussion and we're enjoying this thread.

[Malifice]

Star Wars isn't a great example for universal good and evil, for several reasons.

1.) The dark side isn't evil, and the light side isn't good. The dark side is emotion, the light side is mindfulness, or possibly will. And according to some beliefs in the setting, both are corruptions of the 'true' Force. In fact, the first dark side Jedi were incredibly tragic figures that were hunted down and persecuted by light side Jedi during the first schism, with the original dark Jedi, Xendor, being the one that tried suing for peace over the increasingly militant Jedi Order.

2.) If the trailers are any indication, the above views on the Force might become very much canon in episode VIII.

3.) Anakin was being corrupted by one of the best chess masters in the setting. It wasn't some innate magnetism from the dark side that made Anakin evil, it was the clever manipulations of Palpatine. Asajj, despite forcing Anakin to rely on dark side powers, had no ability to turn him evil nor keep him smothered in the dark side.

4.) Speaking of, both Anakin and Luke managed to dip dark side without fully losing control. The real reason the dark side can be dangerous is that the emotions you carry with you into a fight are liable to be the worst ones- anger, fear, and hatred. The Jedi principles of mindfulness can help dispel these emotions, but the fact of the matter is that for all the talk on the spiral of the dark side, it is fully possible to drink very deep from that well and still return. Remember that the Jedi Order is incredibly biased against Bodan, the dark side of the Force.

5.) With the newest canon, the dark side and the light side both come from the Family. Both are needed, in unity, to achieve true peace and happiness. You cannot argue that this means you need an equal amount of good and evil to achieve goodness, that makes absolutely zero sense. Instead, it insinuates, and was shown, that the dark side has its positive qualities just as the light side has its negative ones. Only in balance is the Force at peace.

This is besides the point of the argument, but Anakin's fall is a poor example of universal good and evil. Especially considering he was redeemed by a Luke that had just used the dark side of the Force for the first time. He wasn't doing the right thing by not striking down the Emperor- he was hoping that his father could step back from the brink.

Also, as presented, Vader's last act against Emperor was fueled by the dark side, not the light. It was raw emotion that gave him that strength.

The Jedi seek peace and absence of emotions (including love) because love leads to attachment, and attachment can lead to jealously, anger, hatred and fear (of loss). Love also clouds judgement.

Non negative emotions themselves are not evil or of the dark side. A Jedi showing off using the force to pluck a flower to give to his girlfriend while overcome with love, doesnt 'gain a darkside point'. But the problem is love can lead you to the dark side, if you're not wary. Maybe when the Jedi comes to her house and catches her with another bloke, he lashes out in jealousy, anger and hatred. Or if she gets sick, he uses the force in fear for her loss.

The Jedi practice a 'better safe than sorry' approach.

That said, 'love' is not 'good' in DnD or Star Wars terms. Self sacrifice and avoiding harming others is good.

And those two things are the Jedi way. They only harm others in self defense or the defense of others, and when no other option reasonably presents itself.

Hatred, anger and fear are not 'evil' in DnD or Star War either. Only the actions undertaken while feeling these emotions usually are. Being angry (even as a Jedi) isnt enough in and of itself to turn one to the dark side. You also need to be doing an act (specifically using the force, or simply lashing out and harming someone while angry, afraid or hatefully) to be doing something 'evil'.

[Malifice]

Does Anakin redeem himself with this one act? He betrayed his Order and murdered children. And then at the end he killed the Emperor. I think it's fair to say that he is probably the only one, at the time, able to defeat the Emperor, and that, in defeating the Emperor he changed the course of the galaxy for the better (let's ignore the Expanded Universe for now). That's trillions of lives impacted.

He redeems himself in a cosmic sense (in that he turns away from the dark side, and it no longer controls him).

In RPG (WEG and WOTC) terms he commits an act of self sacrifice, in the cause of the Galactic good, at a dramatically appropriate time, without using the dark side of the force. His Dark side points are reduced to 1 under 'dark side PC' and he is stripped of all his force points. He is no longer 'dark' (and no longer subject to DM veto/ control over his actions) but is right on the edge.

Unsure of how they handle it in FFG.

As to whether he is redeemed in the eyes of other people, almost certainly not.

In legends he appears to Leia as a force ghost years after his death. She promplty dismisses him as a genocidal monster, and tells him while Luke may have forgiven him, she never will. She wants nothing to do with him.

He did torture her (and her husband) and play a hand in the destruction of her home planet after all.

I'm curious about this because I *do* think evil actions weigh more than good actions.

A position mirrored by real world religions. There are some acts of evil that condemn you forever.

Id certainly struggle to call a rapist or child murderer a 'good man', regardless of the charitable work he's done in the past, and how much of a decent bloke he is otherwise. He's shown to me he is not a good man simply on account of the willful act of evil.