New Comics - sequal to kotor and origin of the jedi

[lstyer]

Given these responses, how can you still doubt Obi Wan and Yoda's credibility. One incident with what you admit is good reason should not harm their credibility. Lying is not always a bad thing.

I don't doubt their general credibility, I just think their credibility where Vader is concerned is questionable. And when they're trying (with good reason) to groom Luke to kill Vader and have shown themselves to be willing (with good reason) to lie to Luke in pursuit of that goal, then when they say that Vader can't be redeemed, it doesn't strike me as something we can just accept as true.

No argument there at all, in-universe it's completely foolish.

Well, it just underscores how badly the "Vader is Anakin" reveal screwed up the first movie.

Stop being fucking stupid.

I'm not being fucking stupid. I'm trying to illustrate the concept of intervening causes.

The events on Coruscant and the events on Mustafar are directly related, they happened concurrently.

No, concurrently means "at the same time."

You cannot give equal credit to Anakin's leaving Tatooine because so many other things have happened in the interim the two things are no longer so closely related. By your logic, we might as well place equal blame on the formation of the galaxy, and Darth Bane founding the Sith Order.

That's exactly my point. Although the formation of the galaxy was a cause of Anakin's eventual fall, there were lots of events between those two events that were also causes, any one of which might have gone differently and resulted in a different chain of events.

Suppose you are driving your car, and another driver rear ends you while talking on their cell phone. Suppose that driver was on their way to the grocery store to buy milk. Would you seriously say that the grocery store trip had just as much cause in the accident as talking on the phone while driving?

No, I wouldn't. In this analogy Other Driver getting on the phone while driving corresponds to Anakin dueling Obi-Wan, and Other Driver deciding to go to the grocery store corresponds to Anakin falling to the Dark Side. Just as Anakin could have fallen to the Dark Side but not chosen to duel Obi-Wan, Other Driver could have decided to go to the store but not chosen to talk on the phone on his way there. That's a very good analogy you came up with.

And you used Anakin Skywalker as your example.

Anakin is the single, most prominent example of a Jedi falling.

In other words you admit you're just nitpicking.

No, I think that the distinction between "illegal" and "immoral" is a valuable distinction.

Once Anakin turned to the dark side his confrontation with Obi Wan was inevitable, and thus whatever resulted from that confrontation would be directly tied to his fall as well, and the result was Anakin's near death and horrible disfigurement.

But that particular confrontation was not inevitable. Nor was it inevitable that Anakin would lose as spectacularly as he did. Yes, his fall was a cause of Anakin's disfigurement, but Anakin's disfigurement was not an inevitable result of his fall. His disfigurement was the inevitable result of his poor tactical choice during that fight.

Skin discoloration and disfigurement is another dark side effect and Maul's tattoo's would have concealed that.

Okay.

But still influenced by the care he had for his son, Luke was right in that there was still a noble piece of Anakin SKywalker left not extinguished by the Dark Side.

Absolutely Luke was right. That's probably a major theme of Return of the Jedi. That Luke's capacity for love gave him insight that Yoda and Obi-Wan lacked.

I think Obi Wan felt that possibility of redemption for Anakin existed until Anakin tried to jump over him with disastrous results on Mustafar. At that point, even with Obi Wan at a clear advantage Anakin had been so corrupted by anger and arrogance that he made a big mistake. I think at that point, Obi Wan had given up on him. So I would say it wasn't that they were blinded to the idea, but made an informed opinion based on Anakin getting his limbs chopped off in a dark side fueled rage rather than admitting defeat.

That's certainly a fair interpretation, but I think that "blinded to the idea" is probably also a fair interpretation since we know they were incorrect.

[PainRack]

Errr.... Am I the only person left who remembers the whole sons of suns and other associated prophecies/themes of Star Wars?

Luke Skywalker "saved" Vader soul. He was the other counterpart of the sons of suns prophecies, and together with the Chosen One, they were supposed to had "destroyed evil". Hell, one of the reasons why the Yuzhan Vong weren't dark force users was because of this stated theme.(Which they promptly screwed over in later series, not to mention cade).

Skywalker redemption of Vader WAS supposed to be special and I agree, the "redemption" of Quinlan Vos cheapened it. Post Vader redemptions such as kyle was believable partially because of the third theme where Vader and Luke had destroyed evil so as to speak.

[Darth Fanboy]

I don't doubt their general credibility, I just think their credibility where Vader is concerned is questionable. And when they're trying (with good reason) to groom Luke to kill Vader and have shown themselves to be willing (with good reason) to lie to Luke in pursuit of that goal, then when they say that Vader can't be redeemed, it doesn't strike me as something we can just accept as true.

I don't know how young you are (and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense) but did not get exposed to the EU very much until after TPM, outside of the old technical journal and the video games I did not have much. So when I grew up watching those films I distinctly got the impression that redemption was otherwise impossible myself because that is what the movie was trying to convey when it first came out. So I acknowledge that when I think redemption is pretty damn cheap in the EU keep in mind where i'm coming from.

Now, for an in universe explanation. Why would Obi Wan think redemption is reasonably possible for Anakin after having seen recordings of him murder children, then watch him choke to death Padme knowing that Padme was pregnant with his kid(s)? Why would Obi Wan think redemption is possible after watching over Luke and observing the Empire from afar for two decades, knowing full well of Vader's deeds? The same goes for Yoda.

Well, it just underscores how badly the "Vader is Anakin" reveal screwed up the first movie.

Not really.

I'm not being fucking stupid. I'm trying to illustrate the concept of intervening causes.

And failing.

No, concurrently means "at the same time."

My apologies, I meant "consecutively."

That's exactly my point. Although the formation of the galaxy was a cause of Anakin's eventual fall, there were lots of events between those two events that were also causes, any one of which might have gone differently and resulted in a different chain of events.

No, I wouldn't. In this analogy Other Driver getting on the phone while driving corresponds to Anakin dueling Obi-Wan, and Other Driver deciding to go to the grocery store corresponds to Anakin falling to the Dark Side. Just as Anakin could have fallen to the Dark Side but not chosen to duel Obi-Wan, Other Driver could have decided to go to the store but not chosen to talk on the phone on his way there. That's a very good analogy you came up with.

Except they did talk on the phone and they did hit you and the reason they hit you is because they were being a distracted driver.

Anakin is the single, most prominent example of a Jedi falling.

Except you used him as an example of dark side usage having no effects, when it did in fact dominate his destiny. His weakness in being unable to control himself allowed him to be manipulated by Palpatine.

No, I think that the distinction between "illegal" and "immoral" is a valuable distinction.

Convenient when it serves your purpose. It echoes the Imperial Apologists on this board quite nicely, arguments that have been destroyed over and over again.

But that particular confrontation was not inevitable.

If not inevitable (which I believe it was) it was almost completely so. There is no way that once Anakin fell that he wasn't going to end up going after Obi Wan. He had sworn to destroy the Jedi and Obi Wan had to destroy the Sith. Obi Wan was hesitant and didn't want to and Yoda still sent him to do it anyway. Neither character would have just said "fuck it" and tried to avoid the other, if not on Mustafar that confrontation was going to happen somewhere else.

Nor was it inevitable that Anakin would lose as spectacularly as he did. Yes, his fall was a cause of Anakin's disfigurement, but Anakin's disfigurement was not an inevitable result of his fall. His disfigurement was the inevitable result of his poor tactical choice during that fight.

A poor tactical choice made by his dark side fueled arrogance and anger. "You underestimate my power!" Does that ring a bell?

Absolutely Luke was right. That's probably a major theme of Return of the Jedi. That Luke's capacity for love gave him insight that Yoda and Obi-Wan lacked.

Which I already gave as my opinion.

That's certainly a fair interpretation, but I think that "blinded to the idea" is probably also a fair interpretation since we know they were incorrect.

You cannot use the insight you have as an omniscient third party viewer and hold it against characters that don't share said insight. Given the information availiable, I am sure almost anyone in Obi Wan's position would have made the same interpretation given the evidence availiable.

[lstyer]

I don't know how young you are (and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense) but did not get exposed to the EU very much until after TPM, outside of the old technical journal and the video games I did not have much.

I'm about 35, and I've been a Star Wars fan literally as long as I can remember. I didn't really get much EU exposure until the paperback release of Heir to the Empire.

So when I grew up watching those films I distinctly got the impression that redemption was otherwise impossible myself because that is what the movie was trying to convey when it first came out. So I acknowledge that when I think redemption is pretty damn cheap in the EU keep in mind where i'm coming from.

I agree that in the original films the fact that Vader was redeemed was supposed to be an amazing accomplishment, and I'd agree that the EU has made it "less special."

Now, for an in universe explanation. Why would Obi Wan think redemption is reasonably possible for Anakin after having seen recordings of him murder children, then watch him choke to death Padme knowing that Padme was pregnant with his kid(s)? Why would Obi Wan think redemption is possible after watching over Luke and observing the Empire from afar for two decades, knowing full well of Vader's deeds? The same goes for Yoda.

Sure. I'm not saying that Obi-Wan and Yoda were unreasonable in believing that Anakin couldn't be redeemed. I'm just saying they were incorrect.

Except they did talk on the phone and they did hit you and the reason they hit you is because they were being a distracted driver.

But if they hadn't chosen to give in to the temptation of the grocery store, they would never have been driving behind me in the first place.

Except you used him as an example of dark side usage having no effects, when it did in fact dominate his destiny.

No, it definitely had effects, but those effects were also the result of specific choices that Anakin and other characters made subsequent to Anakin's fall. Anakin's falling to the Dark Side did not compel Obi-Wan to cut off Anakin's limbs and leave him lying next to a lava flow. Obi-Wan made those particular choices through Obi-Wan's own exercise of free will.

Convenient when it serves your purpose. It echoes the Imperial Apologists on this board quite nicely, arguments that have been destroyed over and over again.

The distinction between illegal and immoral isn't convenient when it suits my purpose, it's a real distinction. An action's legal status and moral status are independent of one another. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the "Imperial Apologists" thing. That has nothing to do with anything in this conversation that I can see.

There is no way that once Anakin fell that he wasn't going to end up going after Obi Wan.

Dude, he didnt' go after Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan followed him to a planet full of lava flows. I'll buy that Obi-Wan and Anakin were very likely to end up fighting, but it was far from inevitable that they would fight next to a lava flow.

A poor tactical choice made by his dark side fueled arrogance and anger. "You underestimate my power!" Does that ring a bell?

Sure. And I'll say it again. The fall to the Dark Side played a role, it just wasn't the whole story.

You cannot use the insight you have as an omniscient third party viewer and hold it against characters that don't share said insight. Given the information availiable, I am sure almost anyone in Obi Wan's position would have made the same interpretation given the evidence availiable.

I'm not holding my insight against Obi-Wan, I'm saying that the later events of the narrative revealed that Obi-Wan was incorrect in his belief that Anakin was beyond redemption. I understand why he believed that. I'll go one better and say that it was a reasonable belief based on what Obi-Wan had experienced and observed. But "history" eventually proved Obi-Wan's belief incorrect.

[Darth Fanboy]

I'm about 35, and I've been a Star Wars fan literally as long as I can remember. I didn't really get much EU exposure until the paperback release of Heir to the Empire.

So similar to my situation then .

I agree that in the original films the fact that Vader was redeemed was supposed to be an amazing accomplishment, and I'd agree that the EU has made it "less special."

Which, at the risk of repeating myself, leads back to what started the whole conversation. Ostrander and Duursema to me perpetuated this trend with their pet character, and that's why I can't take them seriously. I never bought any of the Vos-centered books, and why I refused to buy anything from SW: Legacy where Cade Skywalker took Vos's place.

Sure. I'm not saying that Obi-Wan and Yoda were unreasonable in believing that Anakin couldn't be redeemed. I'm just saying they were incorrect.

The way you addressed it previously it seemed as if you were.

But if they hadn't chosen to give in to the temptation of the grocery store, they would never have been driving behind me in the first place.

The driver needed a grocery item, they were bound to be out on the road sooner or later. An uncounted number of events came together to put the two cars on the road at the exact same time, but that doesn't change the direct cause of the accident being the other driver's distraction. If the driver hadn't been using a phone the accident as it happened would not have occurred. If Anakin had not falled to the dark side, the fight on Mustafar would not have occurred.

No, it definitely had effects, but those effects were also the result of specific choices that Anakin and other characters made subsequent to Anakin's fall. Anakin's falling to the Dark Side did not compel Obi-Wan to cut off Anakin's limbs and leave him lying next to a lava flow. Obi-Wan made those particular choices through Obi-Wan's own exercise of free will.

It compelled the fight, of which the injuries were a result. I think we have come to a lot of common ground but on this issue I hate to say you are being incredibly dumb.

The distinction between illegal and immoral isn't convenient when it suits my purpose, it's a real distinction. An action's legal status and moral status are independent of one another. I don't know what the hell you're talking about with the "Imperial Apologists" thing. That has nothing to do with anything in this conversation that I can see.

There are those people on this board that defend the Galactic Empire's actions and justify such things as the destruction of Alderaan, enslavement of sentient species, and other atrocities. Claiming that Luke Skywalker is a mass murderer because he blew up the Death Star is one of those things that is sometimes heard when those folks try to argue that the Rebels were just as evil.

But I digress, I said that the Death Star was a legitimate military target, you argued it wasn't, and then later switched to the idea that it was morally but that legally it wasn't. Your criteria changed. It's also dishonest in my opinion to use that argument. That the Rebels were trying to overthrow the Empire does not make a weapon of war any less legitimate of a military target.

Dude, he didnt' go after Obi-Wan. Obi-Wan followed him to a planet full of lava flows. I'll buy that Obi-Wan and Anakin were very likely to end up fighting, but it was far from inevitable that they would fight next to a lava flow.

Anakin would have if Obi Wan hadn't first, and no it wasn't inevitable to fight next to a lava flow, but given that the two did fight, consequences were inevitable given that the rift between the two men had made a peaceful resolution impossible at that point.

Sure. And I'll say it again. The fall to the Dark Side played a role, it just wasn't the whole story.

Anakin had personality flaws, but would Anakin have led the raid on the Jedi Temple without going to the Dark Side? Without giving in to anger, fear, and attachment he would never have cut off Windu's hand and allowed Palpatine the opportunity to succeed.

I'm not holding my insight against Obi-Wan, I'm saying that the later events of the narrative revealed that Obi-Wan was incorrect in his belief that Anakin was beyond redemption. I understand why he believed that. I'll go one better and say that it was a reasonable belief based on what Obi-Wan had experienced and observed. But "history" eventually proved Obi-Wan's belief incorrect.

You said he was "blinded to the idea" previously and also asked if it was possibly influenced by "an acute sense of betrayal." I am just making my point that Luke saw something that possibly no one else ever could have in order to make Vader's redemption possible, and I firmly believe that before the EU it was intended for redemption to be impossible.

[lstyer]

Which, at the risk of repeating myself, leads back to what started the whole conversation. Ostrander and Duursema to me perpetuated this trend with their pet character, and that's why I can't take them seriously.

Yeah, that just strikes me as more of an EU problem than a Vos problem.

I refused to buy anything from SW: Legacy where Cade Skywalker took Vos's place.

I liked Legacy more than I did the Vos stuff, but that's in part because there was so much more than just Jedi vs. Sith going on in Legacy.

If Anakin had not falled to the dark side, the fight on Mustafar would not have occurred.

And if Padme hadn't followed Anakin to Mustafar, the fight on Mustafar would not have occurred.
And if Obi-Wan hadn't stowed away on Padme's ship, the fight on Mustafar would not have occurred.

I think we have come to a lot of common ground but on this issue I hate to say you are being incredibly dumb.

I'm gonna disagree that I'm being dumb. It's sometimes possible for two people to disagree but neither is dumb.

Claiming that Luke Skywalker is a mass murderer because he blew up the Death Star is one of those things that is sometimes heard when those folks try to argue that the Rebels were just as evil.

Well, legally speaking Luke Skywalker was a mass murderer in that he illegally killed a bunch of people at once when he blew up the Death Star. Morally speaking blowing up the Death Star wasn't in any way evil.

But I digress, I said that the Death Star was a legitimate military target, you argued it wasn't, and then later switched to the idea that it was morally but that legally it wasn't. Your criteria changed.

I didn't intend to change my criteria, so if I did, I apologize. My point from the beginning was that we can't judge someone morally because something they did was "criminal." Legally speaking the Death Star was not a legitimate target, but morally speaking it was.

It's also dishonest in my opinion to use that argument.

I don't see how it's dishonest in the least to draw the distinction. I think it's a very important distinction. Even in the real world there are actions that are illegal but not immoral. There's even a legal term for those actions, "mallum prohibitum." This isn't just something I'm making up.

That the Rebels were trying to overthrow the Empire does not make a weapon of war any less legitimate of a military target.

No, that the Rebels were not a government means that no target they struck was legally legitimate. That the Rebels were overthrowing a tyrannical government means that any Imperial military target they struck was morally legitimate.

Anakin would have if Obi Wan hadn't first, and no it wasn't inevitable to fight next to a lava flow, but given that the two did fight, consequences were inevitable given that the rift between the two men had made a peaceful resolution impossible at that point.

Sure, I'll grant that once Anakin fell and purged the Temple it was inevitable that he and Obi-Wan would fight. But I simply don't buy that it was inevitable that they'd fight next to a lava flow and that Anakin would be left alive but very badly burned.

Anakin had personality flaws, but would Anakin have led the raid on the Jedi Temple without going to the Dark Side? Without giving in to anger, fear, and attachment he would never have cut off Windu's hand and allowed Palpatine the opportunity to succeed.

You said he was "blinded to the idea" previously and also asked if it was possibly influenced by "an acute sense of betrayal."

Yes, those are possible explanations for why Obi-Wan was wrong about Anakin. His acute sense of betrayal almost certainly influenced his thought process on the topic of Anakin's redemption. I'd say that it blinded him to that possibility. That's not a condemnation of Obi-Wan, it's crediting him with a good reason to be wrong about Anakin rather than just writing it off to anger and hatred.

I firmly believe that before the EU it was intended for redemption to be impossible.

You may be right. I'm not even sure that Vader's own redemption was even possible as of 1977 Star Wars, when Lucas hadn't latched onto the idea that Vader was Anakin.