Why *wasn't* Luke evil? (a disturbance in the Force)

[Chocobo]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE Bo Diddly *
**
I disagree. My take is that Vader thought that his overthrowing of the Emperor was simply a natural event, one of the rituals of the Sith teachings. Remember in TPM that it’s mentioned that there are only two Sith at a time - “A master, and an apprentice” - if Vader were to take on an apprentice, then his old master would have to be done away with.

It wasn’t that Vader wasn’t devoted to the Emperor, he was simply more eager to be reunited with his son. **

I would agree, except for a couple points. First, to the arguement that since there are only two Sith, then the old master would have to be done away with. This does not account for Vader and the Emperor’s discussion in the Holotheatre in TESB. “If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.” “Yes…yes. Can it be done?” “He will join us or die.”

This brings up some interesting points. First, it is unclear whether Vader knew that only 2 Sith can exist at one time. If he didn’t, (which I believe is the case, due to the ‘us’ in his wording) then he wouldn’t have realized that by offering to turn Luke he would be signing either his own or the Emperor’s death warrant. This would show that when Vader proposed Luke to join him on Cloud City, he was doing so without having the ‘natural way of things’, but more of an overthrow of power. (This ties in later)

However, if he did know that only 2 Sith can exist at a time, then Vader knew that there would be 1 of 3 different outcomes when he offered to turn Luke. The first would be that he was successful, and the Luke would help him overthrow the Emperor. The second would be that the Emperor would kill Vader and take Luke as his apprentice. This would be the most likely scenario, as Vader was less powerful than the Emperor, and Luke, while he CAN destroy the Emperor, has not focused his power. (Pointed out by Vader during their duel on Cloud City) The Emperor would simply be able to kill Vader and take Luke as his apprentice. And then there’s scenario three, where Vader (or the Emperor) kills Luke, and life goes on as normal.

Now, when the Emperor agreed to turning Luke, (this is still assuming Vader knew about only 2 Sith at one time) Vader realized that the Emperor was planning his death already. Since Luke was obviously more powerful, then Vader would be the odd-man out, and the Emperor would kill him. At that point, Vader’s devotion to the the Emperor would have been destroyed. Since he is a Dark Jedi, his lust for power would simply overrule that. We also see his need for power in the other movies as well… Choking Admiral Motti on the Death Star, was simply an act to show that his power, the Force, was much more than anything the lowly Admiral could create. When Vader feels his power is threatened, he gets mad and retaliates. This is also shown in his duel on Cloud City. Luke’s unwillingness to turn was a direct challenge to his skill, so he got mad. Best shown just after Luke is thrown out the window and is trying to find his way back in. If you watch, Vader’s fighting is much more ‘enraged’ looking.

So in conclusion, I’ve just rambled on, and probably lost many of you. But my point is, Vader’s motives were not primarily due to his wanting to save his son, and they definitely weren’t out of loyalty to his Emperor. I could probably go into more detail, but I’ve got pizza and homework to do, so I’ll check back in later.

[cornflakes]

*Originally posted by Ethilrist *
**My big problem with the whole turning-to-the-dark-side thing was that it was perfectly okay for Luke to use the Force to destroy the Death Star, which involved the murder of thousands (tens of thousands? hundreds? lots, anyway) of clerks, technicians, and system operators, the vast majority of which were no more evil than Luke’s uncle Owen. On the other hand, using The Force to kill the single most evil person in the entire Empire and avenging the deaths of billions of people was a bad thing to do.

So, using the Force to kill innocent people: good.
Using the Force to avenge innocent people: bad.

WTF? **

Most religions differentiate between wartime killing and murder as a willful act. A nation (or rebel force) may need to kill to defend what is theirs, but one person isn’t allowed to kill someone else for personal reasons.

The Death Star was a military target; Luke blew it up while in the service of the rebel forces. It’s a safe bet that everyone on board contributed to its mission, and the people on board were no more innocent than the cook on a battleship is today.

IMHO, the scene wasn’t well set up, but I think Palpatine wanted Luke to kill Vader as an act of vengeance. Luke was pissed that Vader had killed his friends and family and was going to go after his sister next. Supposedly, Luke didn’t pick up his lightsaber to serve justice; he wanted to wreak personal vengeance on Vader.

On the other hand, I personally think Vader threw Palpatine in the reactor because he was sick of that damn, stupid giggling. Unfortunately, he was saved by doing it, and that doesn’t help my argument, so forget I said it…

[SPOOFE]

Balance…

I generally discount anything outside of the canon for discussion purposes

::shrug:: Then I hope you accept that you’ll only be able to debate a very limited scope of material. The accepted protocol is “give credence to official sources unless it’s clearly contradticted by a canon source” (the canon sources are the movies, the novelisations of the movies, and some people say the radio dramas, but I’m not so sure about the latter).

For example, the sourcebooks tell us what armaments a Star Destroyer has… information which is NOWHERE in the movies.

I have a pet theory that the Dark Side was actually consuming Palpatine, making him less a man and more a simple force of destruction.

I’m awarding you fifty SPOOFE points, because that’s exactly the case. Supposedly, Palpatine was only in his late 50s at the time of ROTJ… his dark side power was so strong that it was destroying his body, forcing him to implement a plan of growing clone bodies of himself, and when he gets too frail, he transmits his mind into one of them (it’s not known whether or not he got a chance to do this prior to his (first) death).

Johnathan Chance…

But I still think the force ‘augments’ what’s already there rather than an outside force.

It’s a mixture of both. As far as the Force is concerned, Luke’s body and the galaxy around it are the same thing. Manipulating one is just like manipulating the other.

First, to the arguement that since there are only two Sith, then the old master would have to be done away with. This does not account for Vader and the Emperor’s discussion in the Holotheatre in TESB. “If he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally.” “Yes…yes. Can it be done?” “He will join us or die.”

Yes, I know. In this case, the movies are internally inconsistent (like they are with the interior and exterior shots of the Millenium Falcon, for instance). What do we do when two equally strong canon sources contradict each other? Well… we panic, and then try to think of a solution.

My solution is that, simply, Vader wasn’t thinking very far in advance of having to deal with the dilemma of having more than two Sith in existence. On the Emperor’s part, it probably wouldn’t have been a good idea to say, “Oh, yeah, and as soon as you convert him, I’m gonna kill you. Toodles!”

Another possible solution would be that the Emperor wanted to do away with the whole “only two Sith” rule, looking forward to having an entire army of ultra-powerful mages roaming the galaxy and doing his bidding… and Vader wanted to stick with the traditional Sith methods.

Unfortunately, the truest explanation is also the worst, story-wise: Lucas simply succumbed to the cheesy plot gimmicks that pervade Hollywood.

Vader’s motives were not primarily due to his wanting to save his son, and they definitely weren’t out of loyalty to his Emperor.

I think it was both. He was torn between the two worlds… his loyalty to his master, and his devotion to his son.

[domina]

The philosophy of violence in Star Wars seems to follow closely the Bhagavad Gita. That book, which was all about a god persuading a warrior to go to war, took the attitude that if you’re born a soldier (and this being India, it was something you were born to), you have to fight because to do otherwise would be asserting your individual will against Fate. Conversely, fighting and killing out of your own personal bloodlust and passions is also bad, because it is also asserting your individual will. Thus the ideal warrior is one who puts aside his own thoughts and desires and acts as an agent of a larger force–much like a Jedi.

This is, of course, problematic to modern American ethics (including mine). But another point the god makes in the book is that the physical world is an illusion, so even if you kill people’s bodies, their souls go on forever. What’s important in this scheme of things isn’t so much what you do (even if it’s violent) but your internal spiritual state.

So it’s not so much the body count that Luke builds up, but whether he surrenders to his own passions or surrenders his individualism to the Force. When he blows up the Death Star, he pushes away his computer and lets the Force guide him. When he rushes off to Cloud City to rescue his friends, he does it in a blind rage. I don’t remember the ROTJ scene in great detail, but Lucas did stray, I think, from the Gita in taking a sentimental Western view toward familial love. Luke and Vader both acted on behalf of others, but was it because of their denial of self, or because the others were their family members?

[Balance]

I’m not going to argue or pontificate this time…

I just reread this entire thread, and one idea leapt out at me. Everyone look back at the thread and think about it.

Then raise your hand if you think we’ve put waaaaay more thought into this than Lucas ever did.

(SPOOFE, I do accept the debate limitations imposed by my canon-only view, at least partially because I’m not interested in wading through the other material. However, if you present a non-canon idea that does not conflict with the canon (either explicitly or by implication), then I will consider it. If it doesn’t strain the internal logic too much, I’ll usually accept it. I just won’t introduce non-canon material into a discussion.)

[domina]

Oh, of course. But I’ve got to use my college education for something!

[SPOOFE]

Then raise your hand if you think we’ve put waaaaay more thought into this than Lucas ever did.

You’ve never heard of Curtis Saxton, have you? Or Michael Wong? Or Robert B.K. Brown?

Basically, the answer to your question is “No”

However, if you present a non-canon idea that does not conflict with the canon (either explicitly or by implication), then I will consider it. If it doesn’t strain the internal logic too much, I’ll usually accept it. I just won’t introduce non-canon material into a discussion.

'Atsa fine. I’m just trying to put a bit more of an extension on what I see going on in the films.

You still get those 50 SPOOFE points, anyway.

[thinksnow]

SPOOFE, that’s all well and good, as, at least at a cursory glance, those sites are after-the-fact, too. I think Balances point was that we’ve had 20-some-odd years to dissect, pontificate and theorize having seen the finished product. Did Lucas spend 20-some-odd years molding and crafting this tale (the original 3, not TPM) to ensure there were no inconsistencies, no holes in the plot and no crucial bits of information we might need that would not be addressed?

[SPOOFE]

. Did Lucas spend 20-some-odd years molding and crafting this tale (the original 3, not TPM) to ensure there were no inconsistencies, no holes in the plot and no crucial bits of information we might need that would not be addressed?

The way I had it explained to me was that Lucas had this big, massive story, but it was too large to put into a movie, so he took a piece of that… but it was STILL too long for a movie, so he took a sliver of THAT.

I don’t know how accurate that is, but I DO know that he had spent many years (not nearly 20, however) formulating the story.

I’ll tell you this… the biggest plot holes are a result of him not knowing if he’ll ever get to do more than one movie. He wasn’t sure Star Wars would ever catch on, so he had to write ANH so that it could stand alone. After that, however, he knew he was onto something big, and so was able to make a bit of continuity between the latter two movies.

Other plot holes (such as the problems with Jabba’s size) were a matter of the technology not being available for him to do what he wanted. Still others (like the size discrepancy of the Millenium Falcon and AT-AT’s) were a problem with model and set building.

All-in-all, I can’t think of many plot holes or quirks in the first three movies, aside from the siblinghood of Luke and Leia… although, in my mind, that’s a mere quibble.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
Nah, it’s [TK] never shown in the movies, where the height of his power was his ample clairvoyance (though he failed to understand that there was still some good in Vader) and his ability to generate and manipulate charged particles. The best reference of his telekinetic abilities comes from the comic books Dark Empire and Dark Empire II, if I recall correctly, though these aren’t as official as some sources.

Perhaps he was just too surprised and angry to counteract his inertia? Or maybe he was extremely powerful in some of the more destructive aspects of the Force (“Lookit me, I can zap things!”) but never really bothered to develop a silly little skill like the ability to move stuff around?

::shrug::
HA! I beat SPOOFE at Star Wars trivia!

When Luke is led in front of the Emperor by Vader (in JEDI), the Emperor twiddles his fingers to open the shakles holding Luke and says something like “You won’t be needing those, young Skywalker”

Fenris

[Munch]

*Originally posted by Chocobo *
**This would be the most likely scenario, as Vader was less powerful than the Emperor, and Luke, while he CAN destroy the Emperor, has not focused his power. (Pointed out by Vader during their duel on Cloud City) The Emperor would simply be able to kill Vader and take Luke as his apprentice. And then there’s scenario three, where Vader (or the Emperor) kills Luke, and life goes on as normal. **

Why do you keep assuming that Luke is more powerful than Vader? Did I miss a quote somewhere?

[thinksnow]

In the original trilogy, it was implied that Luke was the strong one in the Force. We now know better.