Star Wars: The Acolyte official trailer

[Keltest]

Anakin's ambitions were very much to become the best "classic" Jedi there ever was. Its hard to say exactly how Anakin would have turned out under Qui-gon's training, but I'm kind of hard pressed to look at Obi-wan's training and say "this, right here, is what he did wrong." Giving him special treatment maybe to foster his ego, but the circumstances of his recruitment into the Order make that impossible to avoid at this point.

[gbaji]

The narrative role of an institution that is no longer an active force within the story is different than the role of one that is still alive and powerful.

Yup. I think we're in agreement here in that this is not really the contradiction that some may make it out to be. It's kinda just the way people would speak of something like that, existing in the past. The warts get removed in reflection.

I do think their treatment of Anakin shows a flaw, which is that the order when handling a member with pretty normal discipline problems (missing home, secret affair) is utterly incapable of doing anything productive. Anakin is not unwilling to seek their counsel, but Yoda and Mace are utterly unable to give any good advice beyond "simply do not"

Oh. I agree completely. The thing is that while this is certainly a flaw of the Jedi Order, it's a well known and understood flaw (by themselves). This is why they don't normally train Jedi if they've already reached a certain age without having been trained already.

The Order understands that their teaching methods and expecations of members require specific things that are very difficult for someone not raised by the Jedi from early childhood to actually achieve. They also know that their own outlook, having been trained from childhood via these methods, will leave them incapable of effectively guiding such people. Which is presumably specifically why they normally don't do this.

Hence why I said that the mistake was in teaching Anakin at all, not that they were bad at teaching him once they started. They knew they were going to be bad at teaching him. That's why they didn't want to do it in the first place. They made an exception and it bit them in the butt. Bad.

I will say that the implied prior status quo of "The Jedi handle investigating crimes committed by Jedi internally" is also not good.

Yeah. But it also wasn't as much of a problem when the Jedi were a mostly autonomous organization, assisting the Senate on single one-off tasks for which their unique skills were suited, but otherwise stayed out of politics, military operations, governing, etc. The Clone War pushed them into positions of power and authority in the Republic for which they were not well suited, and in which they would find themselves having to come more and more under direct Senate/Republic control as a means of checking the power/authority they wielded during said war.

It was a cycle that kept spiraling downward from that point.

"We will bend the rules so you can join us, immediately pair you with a Jedi knight, and give you missions just like any other Jedi".

How, exactly, do they "not treat Anakin as one of their own"?

Yeah. I think the problem was specifically that they treated Anakin exactly as they would have treated any other Jedi Knight. But he was not able to handle that.

The rule regarding age to start training may have appeared silly and counter productive when first stated by Yoda about Luke in ESB, but that was in an environment where the rule no longer made sense or was applicable. They were literally in a "what do we have to lose? " situation. That same rule, when it came to Anakin in PM? Should have been followed. Someone trained that late will never be able to fit in with the midset and methods of the rest of the Order. Worked fine for Luke, since there was no Order. But for Anakin, it caused disaster for the Order and the Republic.

[Talakeal]

Sorry if I am derailing the thread, but I had a thought I wanted some other viewpoints on.

Recently, I have been having some arguments with people about Star Wars morality, both online and in person, and they end with people getting really pissed at me and calling me names and accuse my of supporting abhorrent political practices I won't get into here.

And I am starting to realize my whole problem with Star Wars is that the Jedi seem to be about collectivism, about letting go of your individuality and your emotions and listening to the universe as a whole, whereas as the Sith seem to be about individuality; personal strength and charisma and pursuing your own passions in your own way. But, on the other hand, the Sith support an oppressive totalitarian, whereas the Jedi support "peace and freedom" and support an ineffectual republic and a violent rebellion.

It really leaves me confused as to which side to support. What we are shown doesn't really match up with what we are told.

And then it gets even weirder when we get into slavery. We are told in the prequels that the Republic / Jedi won't / can't do anything about chattel slavery on Tattoine. Then in the OT we see an Imperial pressence on Tattoine, but slavery is still practiced underground by Hutt Gangsters. Then in Mandalorian, the Marshal tells us that as soon as the Empire fell, the slavers came back to Tatooine. And then, we are told that both the Republic and the Empire officially outlaw slavery, but the Empire still allows prison slavery and slavery on "non-sentient" species like Wookies and Ugnauhts. And of course, don't get me started about Droids, whom even in the original trilogy are treated as what can most charitably described as peasants bound in service to the heroes.


Anyone else have any insight into what I am feeling?

[gbaji]

And I am starting to realize my whole problem with Star Wars is that the Jedi seem to be about collectivism, about letting go of your individuality and your emotions and listening to the universe as a whole, whereas as the Sith seem to be about individuality; personal strength and charisma and pursuing your own passions in your own way. But, on the other hand, the Sith support an oppressive totalitarian, whereas the Jedi support "peace and freedom" and support an ineffectual republic and a violent rebellion.

It really leaves me confused as to which side to support. What we are shown doesn't really match up with what we are told.

I think it's not about which side themselves acts on collective versus individual motives, but whether those motives are applied internally or externally. You could correctly identify the Jedi as "collectivists" who teach a very strict set of rules and guidelines for their members. But they do not project that outward onto other people. Those rules apply to only themselves and their own members.

The Sith, on the other hand, employ "individualist" motivations, but they also project what they want/do on others. I guess the point here is that it doesn't matter how you live your own life, or even how a group live their own lives. What may make one "evil" is the degree to which they force others to comply with their own ideology and rules. The Sith have a desire to rule others, while the Jedi do not. To me, that's the more important distinction.

And then it gets even weirder when we get into slavery. We are told in the prequels that the Republic / Jedi won't / can't do anything about chattel slavery on Tattoine. Then in the OT we see an Imperial pressence on Tattoine, but slavery is still practiced underground by Hutt Gangsters. Then in Mandalorian, the Marshal tells us that as soon as the Empire fell, the slavers came back to Tatooine. And then, we are told that both the Republic and the Empire officially outlaw slavery, but the Empire still allows prison slavery and slavery on "non-sentient" species like Wookies and Ugnauhts. And of course, don't get me started about Droids, whom even in the original trilogy are treated as what can most charitably described as peasants bound in service to the heroes.

Uh... Meet the new boss, same as the old boss? I think the issue of slavery on some worlds in the galaxy is tangential to whether the Republic or Empire was good/evil in broad terms.

I will point out, however, that the very same aspect of the Jedi that resulted in them *not* running around rooting out slavery wherever it existed, also meant that they weren't running around imposing their own morality on the galaxy in other ways either. It's really easy to say "make everyone not do something we don't like", when (almost) everyone agrees about disliking that one thing. Where it gets tricky is that usually, once some group is empowered (or even just feels justified) to eliminate the "one thing everone agrees needs to be eliiminated", they rarely stop there. There will always be some "next worst thing" that needs to be adusted, fixed, changed, whatever. The size of "(almost) everyone" shrinks, but the desire to fix/change things remains strong anyway.

Which will inevitably lead to authoritarianism. Even with the best of intentions. Which is why the Jedi don't do this. The Sith, on the other hand, do not have "best of intentions" to begin with. So whether they allow or stop slavery has nothing to do with their own moral judgement of slavery, but whether it helps or hinders their own objectives. If allowing the Hutts to engage in slavery helps the Empire, they'll allow it. If it hurts them or is actively being used to raise wealth for dissidents or trouble makes, they will crush it. There is no grand moral/ethical consideration here.


For the Republic, it was less about "do we like this?", and more the nature of a Repulbic itself. Which, I suppose, we could correlate somewhat with the Jedi philosophy as well. It's about allowing each member world to rule themselves. The positive of that is less authoritarian government. The negative is that some worlds will have laws or rules that other members wont like. It's one of the great paradoxes of government power. The more capable/empowered it is of removing "bad things", the more likely it is to become that "bad thing". Recall that it was exactly the inability of the Republic to "impose order" (on the Trade Federation, and other factions), that lead directly to the Empire.

[Mordar]

And I am starting to realize my whole problem with Star Wars is that the Jedi seem to be about collectivism, about letting go of your individuality and your emotions and listening to the universe as a whole, whereas as the Sith seem to be about individuality; personal strength and charisma and pursuing your own passions in your own way. But, on the other hand, the Sith support an oppressive totalitarian, whereas the Jedi support "peace and freedom" and support an ineffectual republic and a violent rebellion.

It really leaves me confused as to which side to support. What we are shown doesn't really match up with what we are told.

And then it gets even weirder when we get into slavery. We are told in the prequels that the Republic / Jedi won't / can't do anything about chattel slavery on Tattoine. Then in the OT we see an Imperial pressence on Tattoine, but slavery is still practiced underground by Hutt Gangsters. Then in Mandalorian, the Marshal tells us that as soon as the Empire fell, the slavers came back to Tatooine. And then, we are told that both the Republic and the Empire officially outlaw slavery, but the Empire still allows prison slavery and slavery on "non-sentient" species like Wookies and Ugnauhts. And of course, don't get me started about Droids, whom even in the original trilogy are treated as what can most charitably described as peasants bound in service to the heroes.

Anyone else have any insight into what I am feeling?

I think that take on the Sith is too charitable by far. They don't appear to be about individuality, they are about self. Power for self, pursuit of self, bending others to self. They might try to sell susceptible individuals on the idea of individualism...right up until they are under the Sith sway at which point they say "When I said the Sith are about individualism, I meant me. My individualism. Now do my bidding."

Re: ineffectual republic & violent rebellion: Well, as charitable as the Sith view was, I think we are discussing here (so not derailing at all!) the perception of the moment and the "failures" of the Jedi. Manipulated into death throes by a master manipulator doesn't automatically imply ineffectual. Sometimes you lose because you were ineffectual...and sometimes you just get beat. Particularly when half the people wearing your jersey are working for the other side. Violent rebellion...well, the Empire wasn't going to be talked out of power, were freely using violence as terror, and several portions of the inspiration for Jedi supported (or at least allowed) the deployment of violence to further good ends.

So while I get the attraction and conflict, I can no longer agree with the source of the conflict.

I am clearly more forgiving on he Tatooine issue...a limited law enforcement agency cannot be everywhere everywhen, and the places furthest from the bright center of the universe are the most likely to have deep shadows.

And I wanna fight about droids. But I won't.

- M

[warty goblin]

I don't think it's a fair read to say that the Jedi supported an ineffectual Republic, it worked very well for a very long time. Nobody is going to make a movie called Star Wars Peace, so we only see the fall, and no government looks good when it's being actively demolished. But both the OT and the PT repeatedly inform us that the Republic worked pretty well for a long time.

Supporting a violent rebellion is only wrong if violence is an utterly unacceptable tool and/or the system being rebelled against is legitimate. Since no government declares itself illegitimate, the fact that the Empire says it is illegitimate is information-free - there's no chance of them saying otherwise, it is up to the moral discernment of the characters/audience to decide whether rebellion is acceptable. Since we, the audience, are going to see a fun action adventure about how cool space battles are, we're kinda already answered this one.

The freedom/totalitarian axis is more subtle. We tend to think of freedom as freedom to do what we want. The freedom pursued by the Jedi is freedom from want, applied equally to all beings. As the other side of that coin, the totalitarianism of the Sith is the logical and inevitable endpoint of pursuing what you want, unchecked by such constraints as the rights or desires or freedom of others. Anakin's fall is a perfect example of this, he doesn't want Padme to die, so he butchers children because he thinks that will let him save her. This not only disregards the children, it robs Padme of freedom over her own life; given what we know of her as a character would she have wanted children murdered in her name? Of course not, but Anakin, enslaved by his attachment and the fear that comes from that, no longer has the compassion to allow anybody else personhood. Indeed when Padme objects to what he has done, Anakin tries to kill her, because she has now become a threat to his attachment to his self image as heroic savior and liberator.

The element of Revenge of the Sith that is profoundly weird by most modern blockbuster standards is that the hero getting ultimate power to obtain everything he wants, free of limitation from others, is a bad thing. Having taken great power, the protagonist creates not justice but oppression. His willingness to do anything to save his loved ones is not strength and truimph but profound weakness and failure. Normally special magic chosen one movies, particularly in the age of Marvel, tell us pretty much exactly the opposite of this, if only the special people (meaning the audience surrogates) had ultimate power they could fix things, that anything done to save friends and family is not only justified but heroic because friends and family are ultimately all that matters. Often said in exactly those words.

As for slavery still existing, one can be good and neither omnipotent nor perfect.

[Keltest]

As far as Jedi vs Sith goes, the important thing to realize is that they are all of them uniquely in a position of power, and their philosophies are fundamentally about what you have to do in that position.

The Jedi believe that you should not be, and cannot be selfish with that power, that using it for its own sake is bad, that restraint is the order of the day, because without it, you WILL eventually lose control and make bad things happen. They believe in personal responsibility and, by extension, have a lot of reasons to not do something.

Whereas the Sith are all about seizing power, using it for its own sake, indulging yourself, collecting more power, and generally not letting anything get in your way. The ends justify the means, and the end is personal empowerment at any cost. Calling it a philosophy is something of a misnomer even because all it really is, is an excuse to justify... anything. Everything. They think that if they can't be stopped, they shouldn't be stopped.

[Mechalich]

Oh. I agree completely. The thing is that while this is certainly a flaw of the Jedi Order, it's a well known and understood flaw (by themselves). This is why they don't normally train Jedi if they've already reached a certain age without having been trained already.

The Order understands that their teaching methods and expecations of members require specific things that are very difficult for someone not raised by the Jedi from early childhood to actually achieve. They also know that their own outlook, having been trained from childhood via these methods, will leave them incapable of effectively guiding such people. Which is presumably specifically why they normally don't do this.

Hence why I said that the mistake was in teaching Anakin at all, not that they were bad at teaching him once they started. They knew they were going to be bad at teaching him. That's why they didn't want to do it in the first place. They made an exception and it bit them in the butt. Bad.

If you extend from this, it pushes a lot of fault onto Qui-Gon. By the time Anakin arrives on Coruscant, the Council is in a huge bind. Anakin is strong in the Force, unbelievably so, to the point that he's already manifesting Force abilities spontaneously. At this point, if that cut him loose not only is he a 'danger to himself and others' the Order is also learning that the Sith, or at least something a lot like the Sith, is active in the galaxy and if they just Anakin loose that force will snatch him up and turn him into an agent of evil. Worse, the Council knows that Qui-Gon will teach Anakin regardless of what they say, even if they push him out of the Order entirely. If they choose not to train Anakin, they loose all control over a being who they correctly identify as a child of prophecy. The Council decides, reluctantly - Yoda's tone at the end of TPM strongly suggests that any vote they held was a long ways from unanimous - that accepting Anakin and allowing Obi-Wan to train him is the least bad option.

Maybe that was wrong. Maybe an Anakin who becomes Palpatine's apprentice immediately following TPM does less damage than Anakin within the Jedi Order. Impossible to say, though of course Palpatine could have and would have corrupted someone else within the Order (ex. Bariss Offee) to act in his stead anyway.

And this leads back to the real issue being that the Jedi Order was too hidebound and strict. It was unable to adjust to a situation outside very strict pre-determined expectations. In this it demonstrating the typical flaws of bureaucracies everywhere: if the situation isn't in the manual, a proper solution does not exist and leadership forbids the line agents from formulating one. Historically, in order for a bureaucracy to succeed and avoid problems of this kind it needs to engage in almost constant review, reorganization, and restructuring in the hopes of adapting to new conditions (this generally works imperfectly at best, but at least the goal is understood). The Jedi Order of the PT changed nothing for 800 years. That's crazy. Of course they proved unable to adapt when a genuine unexpected circumstance slammed into them.

[LibraryOgre]

One suggestion I have seen, vis a vis Anakin, is that the Dark Side won the Duel of the Fates with the death of Qui Gonn. Sure, Maul [kinda-sorta] died, and Obi-Wan "won", but Obi-Wan wasn't equipped to deal with Anakin, to train him well, whereas Qui Gonn was. Had Qui-Gonn survived, he could have guided Anakin through his tribulations. But he did not, so Anakin was left with "brother" Obi-Wan instead of "Father" Qui-Gonn.

[Errorname]

I don't think it's a fair read to say that the Jedi supported an ineffectual Republic, it worked very well for a very long time. Nobody is going to make a movie called Star Wars Peace, so we only see the fall, and no government looks good when it's being actively demolished. But both the OT and the PT repeatedly inform us that the Republic worked pretty well for a long time.

I dispute the read on the 'it worked very well for a long time'. I think we are meant to understand the Phantom Menace as a glimpse at how the Republic and Jedi have historically operated. I do not think we are meant to read it as having only recently become the way it is.

One suggestion I have seen, vis a vis Anakin, is that the Dark Side won the Duel of the Fates with the death of Qui Gonn. Sure, Maul [kinda-sorta] died, and Obi-Wan "won", but Obi-Wan wasn't equipped to deal with Anakin, to train him well, whereas Qui Gonn was. Had Qui-Gonn survived, he could have guided Anakin through his tribulations. But he did not, so Anakin was left with "brother" Obi-Wan instead of "Father" Qui-Gonn.

This is Filoni's stance, and it's possible that he got this directly from Lucas.

I don't fully agree with that, I think there's a pretty persuasive argument that Qui-Gon's unorthodox stances and fixation on prophecy might have resulted in an Anakin who was messed up in entirely different ways, but I can see it.

[Trafalgar]

One suggestion I have seen, vis a vis Anakin, is that the Dark Side won the Duel of the Fates with the death of Qui Gonn. Sure, Maul [kinda-sorta] died, and Obi-Wan "won", but Obi-Wan wasn't equipped to deal with Anakin, to train him well, whereas Qui Gonn was. Had Qui-Gonn survived, he could have guided Anakin through his tribulations. But he did not, so Anakin was left with "brother" Obi-Wan instead of "Father" Qui-Gonn.

It's never been clear to me that Qui Gonn would have done a better job than Obi Wan. It's Qui Gonn, after all, that rescues Anakin while leaving his mother in slavery and it is her eventual death is one of Anakin's biggest steps towards the dark side. Was Qui Gonn going to come back and free Schmi so Anakin wouldn't worry about her? I don't think so. Would Qui Gonn have stopped Anakin from being obsessive about Padme? I don't think so.

If someone needs blame, it's the council for entrusting Anakin to a very new Jedi Knight. But the council does it again when it entrusts Ahsoka to Anakin...

[Infernally Clay]

It's never been clear to me that Qui Gonn would have done a better job than Obi Wan. It's Qui Gonn, after all, that rescues Anakin while leaving his mother in slavery and it is her eventual death is one of Anakin's biggest steps towards the dark side. Was Qui Gonn going to come back and free Schmi so Anakin wouldn't worry about her? I don't think so. Would Qui Gonn have stopped Anakin from being obsessive about Padme? I don't think so.

If someone needs blame, it's the council for entrusting Anakin to a very new Jedi Knight. But the council does it again when it entrusts Ahsoka to Anakin...

Ironically enough the reason Yoda gave Anakin a padawan of his own was to teach him to let go when the time comes. It backfired horribly, though, when Ahsoka left the Order entirely after the whole “the Council doesn’t trust you and won’t have your back when you’re accused of blowing up the Jedi Temple on Coruscant” thing.

It’s entirely possible that if Anakin had been able to see Ahsoka grow up and become a Jedi Knight he might have gotten over his attachment issues, as Yoda hoped he would, but then again it’s entirely possible he wouldn’t have. It’s hard to say. The problem with the prequels being prequels is that the end is a foregone conclusion because it’s already happened. Nothing could stop Anakin becoming Darth Vader.

[Mechalich]

I dispute the read on the 'it worked very well for a long time'. I think we are meant to understand the Phantom Menace as a glimpse at how the Republic and Jedi have historically operated. I do not think we are meant to read it as having only recently become the way it is.

TPM is quite clear that things have gotten bad, like really bad. The Trade Federation not only openly blockades Naboo, when the Jedi arrive on a direct mission from the Chancellor they order their assassination (and kill the Judicial Officers aboard their ship, which is open murder of diplomats) and then invade outright. The Hutts openly control systems and act in blatant defiance of Republic law. The Senate is portrayed as both paralyzed and willing to openly and immediately resolve a vote of no confidence pretty much the moment it is suggested, and only a series of unlikely circumstances: Gungan intervention and Anakin being chosen by the Force, prevent the Trade Federation from occupying Naboo until at least some months after Palpatine is elected. Overall, TPM has the heroes mostly triumph heroically - yes Qui-Gon dies at the hands of Darth Maul, but otherwise things go pretty good for them - and yet things still get worse. Additionally, EU materials in both versions of canon have made it quite clear the by the time of TPM the Republic is falling apart. They are also both clear that the Republic is collapsing after a prolonged golden age that comes to an end around 100 BBY, so things were, in fact, pretty darn good for about 900 years.

Now, what I would say is that while the PT deliberately shows a crumbling Republic, I think it's depiction of the Jedi Order shows a greater number of unintentional points of failure. For example, Yoda's teaching the Jedi for 800 years (a line that originates in the OT), is intended to demonstrate how awesome Yoda is when in fact it diagnoses one of if not the most significant flaws of the PT Era Jedi. Similarly, when Jocasta Nu claims that 'if it isn't in our archives it doesn't exist' she's making a point about how the Jedi have an incredible amount of knowledge but comes off as condescending and blind to the possibility of treachery. And, of course, in agreeing to assign Anakin and Obi-Wan as Padme's bodyguards as Palpatine suggests, Mace Windu doesn't come off as kindly or accommodating, he comes off as an idiot blind to what inevitably going to happen between Anakin and Padme.

Lucas is on record as saying he depicted the Jedi in a hope of fostering increased spirituality in his audience, which explains the Jedi Order's very obvious religious structure. What I don't think he did is properly consider the implications of having a militant religious order serving in the sort of role the Jedi serve, as specialized paramilitary operatives, would be in an otherwise secular galaxy. As a result, even if the Jedi as given the full benefit of the doubt and everything about their moral philosophy is assumed to represent a true path to enlightenment in the Star Wars galaxy, they remain in conflict with the rest of the setting. This is a similar problem to that possessed by Game of Thrones, as diagnosed by Dr. Devereaux: no one in the setting seems to believe in the Force outside of the Jedi and therefore the Order lacks influence, power, and persuasive tools that it needs to have to make sense as an ongoing concern. This is something that we see in the aftermath of Order 66 - while the various supporters of the Jedi mourn their friends, there's no massive religious uprising or protest of the kind that normally happens when the government massacres the members of a major religious institution.

[Errorname]

This is a similar problem to that possessed by Game of Thrones, as diagnosed by Dr. Devereaux: no one in the setting seems to believe in the Force outside of the Jedi and therefore the Order lacks influence, power, and persuasive tools that it needs to have to make sense as an ongoing concern. This is something that we see in the aftermath of Order 66 - while the various supporters of the Jedi mourn their friends, there's no massive religious uprising or protest of the kind that normally happens when the government massacres the members of a major religious institution.

See I can justify it easier with ASOIAF, because the Faith's weakness gets contrasted with the other religions in the story. Most of the religions in ASOIAF have some actual metaphysical heft, the Weirwood net means the Old Gods are actually kind of real and the Red Priests can actually perform miracles, but the Faith? ASOIAF has a very atheistic worldview, most of the religions are clearly built around real phenomena that their adherents do not fully understand, but the Faith of the Seven is set apart by seemingly being just outright fake, and if that wasn't bad enough they got dominated by the Targaryens for 300 years and got pretty thoroughly declawed. They aren't very influential at the start and most of the nobility don't treat them too seriously, but that does make sense as a worldbuilding detail with what the story establishes.

[KorvinStarmast]

And I am starting to realize my whole problem with Star Wars is that the Jedi seem to be about collectivism, about letting go of your individuality and your emotions and listening to the universe as a whole, whereas as the Sith seem to be about individuality; personal strength and charisma and pursuing your own passions in your own way. But, on the other hand, the Sith support an oppressive totalitarian, whereas the Jedi support "peace and freedom" and support an ineffectual republic and a violent rebellion.

Violent rebellion is what often is resorted to that gets rid of tyranny. Suggest you read up on a little actual history of the actual world, your own homeland included. (Of course it holds the risk of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" which revolutions aplenty have set up IRL).

It really leaves me confused as to which side to support. What we are shown doesn't really match up with what we are told.

Lucas was telling an adventure story, and I will suggest that you are overthinking this. The Sith aren't just about individualism, the Sith are about Power and Deceit, which are intended to lead to Domination of others. Those are their core values.

And then it gets even weirder when we get into slavery.

Slavery in a variety of forms is a human institution/practice that goes back to the Sumerians (at least). I think you'll find that in Star Wars, the Empire and the Republic were both Very Loosely based on the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire (pretty sure Lucas himself mentioned this decades ago) both of which had slavery. Also, as A Narrative Tool, being or beginning as a slave offers the Underdog Overcomes plot line a lot of room to work with.

Anyone else have any insight into what I am feeling?

My insight: you are overthinking this. Lucas, as a story teller, wasn't particularly good at nuance.

I don't think it's a fair read to say that the Jedi supported an ineffectual Republic, it worked very well for a very long time.

Republics tend to be a bit messy and inefficient, as does any representative form of government. It's a feature, not a bug. Autocratic forms are often "more efficient" but there is a cost to that. I'll stop there, must not drift too far into RL stuff. I am currently reading a scholarly book on the Eastern Roman Empire (I have gotten from about Diocletian (late 200's to Anastasios (early 500's) so far and while it's fascinating, I need to avoid mixing my media and my messages.

The element of Revenge of the Sith that is profoundly weird by most modern blockbuster standards is that the hero getting ultimate power to obtain everything he wants, free of limitation from others, is a bad thing. Having taken great power, the protagonist creates not justice but oppression. His willingness to do anything to save his loved ones is not strength and truimph but profound weakness and failure. Normally special magic chosen one movies, particularly in the age of Marvel, tell us pretty much exactly the opposite of this, if only the special people (meaning the audience surrogates) had ultimate power they could fix things, that anything done to save friends and family is not only justified but heroic because friends and family are ultimately all that matters. Often said in exactly those words.

I like your analysis of that.

One suggestion I have seen, vis a vis Anakin, is that the Dark Side won the Duel of the Fates with the death of Qui Gonn. Sure, Maul [kinda-sorta] died, and Obi-Wan "won", but Obi-Wan wasn't equipped to deal with Anakin, to train him well, whereas Qui Gonn was. Had Qui-Gonn survived, he could have guided Anakin through his tribulations. But he did not, so Anakin was left with "brother" Obi-Wan instead of "Father" Qui-Gonn.

Yep.

The Trade Federation

They illustrate the limitations of the Republic's reach and power.

I think it's depiction of the Jedi Order shows a greater number of unintentional points of failure.

Yes. Weaknesses hidden within.

Lucas is on record as saying he depicted the Jedi in a hope of fostering increased spirituality in his audience, which explains the Jedi Order's very obvious religious structure.

Indeed. In "A New Hope" (Original Star Wars Movie, Episode 4 ...) Tarkin early on makes a comment to Vader about his religion (with Vader being a Jedi).
At the time the movie came out, my take on the Jedi was a mix of "monks like Kwai Chang Caine with Magic also" combined with "psionics from D&D" (original game). At that time, Monks were not able to have psionic power (Eldritch Wizardry, Supp III to OD&D). IIRC, in AD&D 1e that restriction was lifted.

Later in life, I got a feeling that they were a bit more like 'Jesuits with Magic and Light Sabers' but that's not a great take.

[Talakeal]

Everything everyone has said makes sense.

Still though...

When I look at the Jedi, I see a bunch of guys with sticks up their butts, a group who aspires to be the villains from Equilibrium.
At the same time, the Sith Code strikes me as advocating something more akin to the bohemian lifestyle.

From my understanding of the Jedi philosophy, I imagine their response to slavery would be "Slavery is bad, but trying to end the practice would be worse. Peace is most important. The best course of action for the slaves is to learn to be satisfied with their lot in life and give up their desires for freedom, and just hope that one day their masters also become enlightened enough to free them of their own accord."

Whereas the Sith I can actively see leading a slave revolt or a revolution against a tyrranical government. Afterall, the Sith code ends with "..my chains are broken. The Force shall free me."

I personally am pretty cynical. I don't see any good people in amongst the Jedi except maybe Qui-Gon. On the other hand, all of the Sith we see (except maybe Dooku, it's hard to tell), are actively evil, but viewed through my lens of cynisicm, that makes sense as most people are not good.

But still, whenever I play a Star Wars RPG, I find it far easier to play a passionate rebel who follows the Sith philosophy than that of the Jedi. Combine that with the fact that the Sith have a cool edgy look to them compared to the Jedi's ascetic robes, and its a no brainer.

At the same time, again viewed through my lense of cynicism, the republics, empires, and rebellions are all flavors of violent and either authoritarian or ineffective. Doesn't the Mandalorian also say that life under the Empire is better for the common man than life under the republic in every measurable way? Generally, there is some persecuted minority during IRL periods of fascist rule, but we don't really see this in Star Wars (unless we count droids, who are no better under the republic). My friends claim that all aliens are persecuted under the Empire, but I see almost no actual evidence for this in any of the films or shows.

Violent rebellion is what often is resorted to that gets rid of tyranny. Suggest you read up on a little actual history of the actual world, your own homeland included. (Of course it holds the risk of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" which revolutions aplenty have set up IRL).
Lucas was telling an adventure story, and I will suggest that you are overthinking this. The Sith aren't just about individualism, the Sith are about Power and Deceit, which are intended to lead to Domination of others. Those are their core values.

I am well aware of the parallels. A few years ago I started a thread about diplomacy in LoTR and the whole thing got scrubbed for being too political, despite the fact that, afaict, there was actual direct reference to real world political figures or parties, so I am trying my darndest not to make any comparisons to real world history or religion.

[Keltest]

Everything everyone has said makes sense.

Still though...

When I look at the Jedi, I see a bunch of guys with sticks up their butts, a group who aspires to be the villains from Equilibrium.
At the same time, the Sith Code strikes me as advocating something more akin to the bohemian lifestyle.

From my understanding of the Jedi philosophy, I imagine their response to slavery would be "Slavery is bad, but trying to end the practice would be worse. Peace is most important. The best course of action for the slaves is to learn to be satisfied with their lot in life and give up their desires for freedom, and just hope that one day their masters also become enlightened enough to free them of their own accord."

Whereas the Sith I can actively see leading a slave revolt or a revolution against a tyrranical government. Afterall, the Sith code ends with "..my chains are broken. The Force shall free me."

I personally am pretty cynical. I don't see any good people in amongst the Jedi except maybe Qui-Gon. I don't see many good people amongst the Sith either (except maybe Dooku, it's hard to tell), but viewed through my lense of cynisicm, that makes sense as most people are not good.

But still, whenever I play a Star Wars RPG, I find it far easier to play a passionate rebel who follows the Sith philosophy than that of the Jedi. Combine that with the fact that the Sith have a cool edgy look to them compared to the Jedi's ascetic robes, and its a no brainer.



I am well aware of the parallels. A few years ago I started a thread about diplomacy in LoTR and the whole thing got scrubbed for being too political, despite the fact that, afaict, there was actual direct reference to real world political figures or parties, so I am trying my darndest not to make any comparisons to real world history or religion.

You're overthinking it. The Sith like to dress up their selfishness with deep philosophy, but its basically a lie. Theyre bad people who do bad things because they can get away with it.

[Mordar]

When I look at the Jedi, I see a bunch of guys with sticks up their butts, a group who aspires to be the villains from Equilibrium.

You're supposed to, at some level. All of SW is aimed at a target audience that is ripe for "rebellious youth". Easiest way to make us identify with Anakin, or young Obi-won (and certainly Luke) is to present them as characters shackled by the unfair bindings of forces beyond their control.

From my understanding of the Jedi philosophy, I imagine their response to slavery would be "Slavery is bad, but trying to end the practice would be worse. Peace is most important. The best course of action for the slaves is to learn to be satisfied with their lot in life and give up their desires for freedom, and just hope that one day their masters also become enlightened enough to free them of their own accord."

Whereas the Sith I can actively see leading a slave revolt or a revolution against a tyrranical government. Afterall, the Sith code ends with "..my chains are broken. The Force shall free me."

I think there may be a little Prime Directive, but also the slippery slope issue, combining with the fact that there are only a few thousand (10?) active Jedi, preventing the Order from ending every injustice on every planet every where. Even if the number is 10,000...are all of those "field Knights"?

But still, whenever I play a Star Wars RPG, I find it far easier to play a passionate rebel who follows the Sith philosophy than that of the Jedi. Combine that with the fact that the Sith have a cool edgy look to them compared to the Jedi's ascetic robes, and its a no brainer.

Do you generally play the rebel that wants to overthrow the current regime in order to implement your own tyrannical and monolithic rule? The chains the Sith want to break? Those are things like social norms that keep "good" people from crushing those weaker than themselves, or limitations on their own actions like silly laws or ruling bodies.

I buy cynicism as suggesting that much of the Order is flawed or "not good" depending on world view, but realism dictates even that means the Sith are "way worse than not good".

- M

[warty goblin]

Everything everyone has said makes sense.

Still though...

When I look at the Jedi, I see a bunch of guys with sticks up their butts, a group who aspires to be the villains from Equilibrium.
At the same time, the Sith Code strikes me as advocating something more akin to the bohemian lifestyle.

The Jedi method is not easy or instantly relatable, because it asks something of the practitioner, namely self awareness and understanding and empathy. The Sith ask absolutely nothing, you do you, just do what you want. Their entire philosophy is just ad copy about, like, how [s]this body spray] the Force will unlock your true potential and everybody will recognize you as the protagonist of reality and you will get everything you want and be happy and everyone will live you and nothing bad will ever happen ever again.

The tricky part, one which the films do not explain particularly well, is that the Jedi are not opposed to emotions. What the Jedi philosophy delivers is not emotionlessness, but emotional liberation. You can, as a Jedi, search your feelings, because you correctly perceive and recognize them. Anakin, when he falls, cannot search his feelings because he has no space between himself and his emotion. He's a toddler having a tantrum, the only thing that exists is that he isn't getting a cookie.

From my understanding of the Jedi philosophy, I imagine their response to slavery would be "Slavery is bad, but trying to end the practice would be worse. Peace is most important. The best course of action for the slaves is to learn to be satisfied with their lot in life and give up their desires for freedom, and just hope that one day their masters also become enlightened enough to free them of their own accord."

Whereas the Sith I can actively see leading a slave revolt or a revolution against a tyrranical government. Afterall, the Sith code ends with "..my chains are broken. The Force shall free me."

Err, the Jedi are unable to end slavery in a part of the galaxy outside of their control. The end state of the Sith is enslavement of everyone. The Sith Lord's chains may be broken*, but they chain everyone else. It is not an ideology of freedom, it is the reducto ad absurdum of mistaking emotional indulgence for liberty.


*though of course they really aren't. Anakin goes as Sith as he possibly can, do you think Vader is in any meaningful sense free?

But still, whenever I play a Star Wars RPG, I find it far easier to play a passionate rebel who follows the Sith philosophy than that of the Jedi. Combine that with the fact that the Sith have a cool edgy look to them compareld to the Jedi's ascetic robes, and its a no brainer.

Of course you do, the Sith way is supposed to look easy and attractive! And RPGs are pretty much self indulgence machines anyway - you are literally supposed to be protagonist of reality - it's a natural fit.

[Talakeal]

The tricky part, one which the films do not explain particularly well, is that the Jedi are not opposed to emotions. What the Jedi philosophy delivers is not emotionlessness, but emotional liberation. You can, as a Jedi, search your feelings, because you correctly perceive and recognize them. Anakin, when he falls, cannot search his feelings because he has no space between himself and his emotion. He's a toddler having a tantrum, the only thing that exists is that he isn't getting a cookie.

I get what you are saying, but then again the Jedi code literally begins "...There is no emotion, there is peace."

Maybe my problem is an application of show don't tell. They tell us that the Empire is evil and the Rebels are good, and we are supposed to take them at face value. But when we actually here evidence or philosophy, we are supposed to doubt it and disregard it as unreliable narrators.

Of course you do, the Sith way is supposed to look easy and attractive! And RPGs are pretty much self indulgence machines anyway - you are literally supposed to be protagonist of reality - it's a natural fit.

Maybe my problem is too much White Wolf. All of the classic World of Darkness games are about being the young passionate rebel fighting against the old logical conformist system (and looking dark and edgy while doing it!).

[Keltest]

I get what you are saying, but then again the Jedi code literally begins "...There is no emotion, there is peace."

Maybe my problem is an application of show don't tell. They tell us that the Empire is evil and the Rebels are good, and we are supposed to take them at face value. But when we actually here evidence or philosophy, we are supposed to doubt it and disregard it as unreliable narrators.





Maybe my problem is too much White Wolf. All of the classic World of Darkness games are about being the young passionate rebel fighting against the old logical conformist system (and looking dark and edgy while doing it!).

What do you mean? We see the Empire is evil because they go around murdering and enslaving innocent people. They killed a planet to make a point.

[Wintermoot]

I get what you are saying, but then again the Jedi code literally begins "...There is no emotion, there is peace."

Maybe my problem is an application of show don't tell. They tell us that the Empire is evil and the Rebels are good, and we are supposed to take them at face value. But when we actually here evidence or philosophy, we are supposed to doubt it and disregard it as unreliable narrators.

I mean... the very first act we see the empire do is blow up an entire planet, killing billions of people, as a strong-arm tactic to force information from Leia and "as an example" of their power.

Seriously man, its like you stopped at "listening to what Palpatine says" and completely ignored everything Palpatine actually does. You are listening to the "tell" and willfully ignoring the "show".

[Talakeal]

I mean... the very first act we see the empire do is blow up an entire planet, killing billions of people, as a strong-arm tactic to force information from Leia and "as an example" of their power.

Seriously man, its like you stopped at "listening to what Palpatine says" and completely ignored everything Palpatine actually does. You are listening to the "tell" and willfully ignoring the "show".

Right, but this is in retaliation for armed rebellion. Again, maybe cynical, but the state using disproportionate violence to stamp out a terrorist movement or to scare other states into compliance is pretty much business as usual as far as politics goes. I could come up with dozens of examples off the top of my head, but board rules and all.

What we don't see is whether or not the rebellion was justified in the first place. We never see how fascism and oppression affect the common man. All we have are statements from the D+ shows about how life was better under the Empire and how they kept the various criminal syndicates and alien invaders at bay.

To me, personally, blowing up a planet is utterly abhorrent. But then again, I don't doubt the republic wouldn't have done the same. I mean, they had no problem destroying Ilum to stop the First Order (although I fully admit that they chain of cause and effect between "destroy a planet to prevent future violence" was a lot stronger for Ilum than Alderan.

[Wintermoot]

Right, but this is in retaliation for armed rebellion. Again, maybe cynical, but the state using disproportionate violence to stamp out a terrorist movement or to scare other states into compliance is pretty much business as usual as far as politics goes. I could come up with dozens of examples off the top of my head, but board rules and all.

What we don't see is whether or not the rebellion was justified in the first place. We never see how fascism and oppression affect the common man. All we have are statements from the D+ shows about how life was better under the Empire and how they kept the various criminal syndicates and alien invaders at bay.

To me, personally, blowing up a planet is utterly abhorrent. But then again, I don't doubt the republic wouldn't have done the same. I mean, they had no problem destroying Ilum to stop the First Order (although I fully admit that they chain of cause and effect between "destroy a planet to prevent future violence" was a lot stronger for Ilum than Alderan.

Wow. Okay. Well your viewpoint is so completely bizarre and incomprehensible to me that I'm going to go ahead and choose to disengage. Suffice to say, I'm incapable of seeing where you are coming from and glad of it.

[oudeis]

It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire.

During the battle, Rebel spies managed to steal secret plans to the Empire's ultimate weapon, the DEATH STAR, an armored space station with enough power to destroy an entire planet.

Pursued by the Empire's sinister agents, Princess Leia races home aboard her starship, custodian of the stolen plans that can save her people and restore freedom to the galaxy...

[Peelee]

Right, but this is in retaliation for armed rebellion. Again, maybe cynical, but the state using disproportionate violence to stamp out a terrorist movement or to scare other states into compliance is pretty much business as usual as far as politics goes.

Evil being business as usuall doesn't make it not evil.

All we have are statements from the D+ shows about how life was better under the Empire

One statement from a self-serving source. "wasn't the blue team great?" from a blue team member still decked out in blue regalia and trying to cling onto the dregs of the blue team's power is hardly an unbiased source.

[Talakeal]

Evil being business as usual doesn't make it not evil.

I agree.

All states are violent and oppressive. As are all slavers. Anarchy is great. Lets rebel. That is punk as hell!

Now tell me, which of these codes of conduct sounds like a call for revolution?

"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me."

Or:

"There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force."

One statement from a self-serving source. "wasn't the blue team great?" from a blue team member still decked out in blue regalia and trying to cling onto the dregs of the blue team's power is hardly an unbiased source.

I agree. But that is all we have.

I would have loved a show or movie that explores why the Empire is evil on a human level.

Man, Andor was disappointing.

[Zevox]

From my understanding of the Jedi philosophy, I imagine their response to slavery would be "Slavery is bad, but trying to end the practice would be worse. Peace is most important. The best course of action for the slaves is to learn to be satisfied with their lot in life and give up their desires for freedom, and just hope that one day their masters also become enlightened enough to free them of their own accord."

I sincerely doubt any Jedi would say anything like that. Much more likely they would point out the practical impossibility of stamping out slavery everywhere in the galaxy, a task that even a galactic government that outlaws it can't manage, much less a relatively small order of monks. No doubt they'd be happy to oppose it when practical, they just know that stopping the pratice is beyond their capabilities, however great it would be if they could.

Whereas the Sith I can actively see leading a slave revolt or a revolution against a tyrranical government. Afterall, the Sith code ends with "..my chains are broken. The Force shall free me."

Agaim, extremely doubtful. A Sith might tell a group of slaves that if they want their freedom, they should fight for it and earn it for themselves, but only if they just happened to be around some slaves complaining about their lives and had no other interest in them. And they wouldn't help them, just make the remark, probably with dismissive arrogance because of their own belief that their percieved "strength" makes them superior to these whiny slaves. But Sith are quite happy to enslave others whenever it benefits them - see the Empire's treatment of Wookies for just one example.

At the end of the day, Sith "philosophy" is entirely self-indulgence. It references the concept of freedom as a contrast to the more restrictive philosophy of their adversaries, but it's not remotely about that; in the end it is always strictly about pursuing their own gain and, at best, not caring about the effect of their actions on others (at worst often actively prefering to achieve their goals by harming others).

[Peelee]

I agree.

All states are violent and oppressive. As are all slavers. Anarchy is great. Lets rebel. That is punk as hell!

Now tell me, which of these codes of conduct sounds like a call for revolution?

"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me."

Or:

"There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force."




I agree. But that is all we have.

I would have loved a show or movie that explores why the Empire is evil on a human level.

Man, Andor was disappointing.

Huh. Despite you saying "i agree" to me, i seem to disagree with virtually every view you have here. And i dont think I'll try to explore it any further.

[Talakeal]

Huh. Despite you saying "i agree" to me, i seem to disagree with virtually every view you have here. And i don't think I'll try to explore it any further.

Odd.

I am curious where the miscommunication is.

Do you disagree that states routinely engage in over the top violence in an effort to force compliance? Or do you disagree that doing so is evil?

If both statements are true, it seems to be a basic logical syllogism that all states are evil.

Now, when I say "Anarchy is great. Lets rebel. That is punk as hell!" that is a bit of poetic hyperbole as real life (or most fiction) is obviously more complex than that.


Let me try and boil it down to a single thesis statement: "Star Wars morality gives me cognitive dissonance because it appears to be a story about how the freedom loving individualistic rebels are the good guys and the oppressive totalitarian empire are the bad guys. But at the same time we are told that the oppressive dehumanizing philosophy of the Jedi is the morally correct one, but the freedom loving and individualistic philosophy of the Sith is the morally repugnant one."

And I don't think I have seen anyone really dispute that, although I think most people in this thread agree that none of the Sith we see actually practice what they preach.