StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gandalf wrote:Because as I understand it, the light side is all about balance while the dark side is about chaos and such. So having no dark side presences means no imbalances.

You could argue that both are imbalanced, in that the light side encourages altruism to the extreme, while the dark side encourages selfishness in the extreme. So they must balance each other for sapience to thrive. It's a moot point, since the much-maligned shroud of the dark side was an example of the imbalance in the force, as it only disappeared on the Emperor's death (this is actually in the original ROTJ novelization). So Anakin did bring balance to the Force by destroying the Sith, but the dark side certainly didn't vanish.

SeaTrooper wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:Let's not forget that the "no attachments" doctrine is also a choice that Jedi make. There is nothing stopping them from saying "I'd rather have a family, i'm out" and then just leaving the order. Only twenty Jedi Masters ever left the order because of this, but there is no confirmation on how many Knights or Padawans may have left for just such a reason. The busts of these Masters were kept in the Jedi Archives as a reminder that the Jedi Order did not always meet the needs of its constiuents. I believe it was "Dark Lord" or "Labyrinth of Evil" where this was discussed.

Woah, I thought one of the novels stated that those were Masters who fell to the Dark Side? Were they singled out solely for leaving the Order? A form of 'naming and shaming', perhaps? Leave the Jedi Order, even if not for any overtly evil reasons, and you'll be branded forever!

Um, no? They're kept as reminders that the Jedi have failed their members. "Branded forever" is ridiculous in light of the respect which was accorded Dooku before his revelation of Sith status, and he was one of those who left.

SeaTrooper wrote: Lovely bit of irony, there.

When hearing Obiwan state that the Chosen One was meant to restore balance to the Force by destoying the sith, I really didn't get it.

I've never heard this prophecy explicity stated before, which adds to the mystery. But there is no aource I am aware of where this prophecy mentions anything about destroying the Sith, it only mentions balance. If anyone has a source to correct me i'd love to hear it. Yoda actually says in TPM, "A prophecy that misread, could have been." Showing that even the 900 year old Jedi Master was unsure of how to interpret it.

How does removing one side of this conflict restore balance? Destoying BOTH sides, now that's a balance.

Sure is.

Gandalf wrote:Because as I understand it, the light side is all about balance while the dark side is about chaos and such. So having no dark side presences means no imbalances.

Or it could mean a balance between light and dark. If there is too much light and not enough dark, is that not an imbalance? The prophecy appears to be more open to interpretation that one expects. It could very well be that Qui Gon was swayed by this prophecy because he believed in it, and perhaps he didn't realize what balance entailed just as you did, and as a result he ended up in part enabling the clusterfuck that occured in the decades after his death.

The PT era OJO was flawed. The NJO still had its flawed (but it got better over time), but removing the "no attachments" rule was really good thinking on Luke's part. Contrary to turning people to the dark side, there were actually many occasions in which former NJO Jedi were redeemed by loved ones.

The whole prophecy is bogus either way. Only a few decades later the Sith are back, stronger than ever. So all the hooplah about virgin birth, chosenness, massive war and extermination events that surrounded Anakin Skywalker's life to buy precious few years (or none at all if you remember "Dark Lady of the Sith" Lumiya) of Sith absence. Was totally worth it, wasn't it?

Metahive wrote:The whole prophecy is bogus either way. Only a few decades later the Sith are back, stronger than ever. So all the hooplah about virgin birth, chosenness, massive war and extermination events that surrounded Anakin Skywalker's life to buy precious few years (or none at all if you remember "Dark Lady of the Sith" Lumiya) of Sith absence. Was totally worth it, wasn't it?

Actually, Anakin's prophecy was indeed relevant. Although he didn't annihilate the sith once and for all, he did save the Jedi Order. The other threats that you've listed were confronted by a powerful NJO. Therefore, although sith still popped up, there were Jedi to oppose them, thus saving the galaxy.

Hello all, first post so jumping in with both feet.

Darth Fanboy wrote:

Gandalf wrote:Because as I understand it, the light side is all about balance while the dark side is about chaos and such. So having no dark side presences means no imbalances.

Or it could mean a balance between light and dark. If there is too much light and not enough dark, is that not an imbalance? The prophecy appears to be more open to interpretation that one expects. It could very well be that Qui Gon was swayed by this prophecy because he believed in it, and perhaps he didn't realize what balance entailed just as you did, and as a result he ended up in part enabling the clusterfuck that occured in the decades after his death.

It seems to me that we have a fundamental problem in how we define the "Force" and the "Dark Side". I would claim that the idea of a "Light Side" is typical EU non-sense; that the "Dark Side" is an aberration that harms the harmony of the "Force" rather then a counterweight to a "Light Side".

One important issue to note is that in all the films, iirc, there is no mention of the "Light Side" of the Force. Both the Jedi and the Sith speak as if there is only the Force itself and the "Dark Side". Luke on Dagobah came as close as we get with his question of knowing the "good side" from the bad.

In addition to that we have an old George Lucas http://www.next-wave.org/may99/starwars.htm interview, the important part is:



MOYERS: When Darth Vader tempts Luke to come over to the Empire side, offering him all that the Empire has to offer, I am taken back to the story of Satan taking Christ to the mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world, if only he will turn away from his mission. Was that conscious in your mind?

LUCAS: Yes. That story also has been retold. Buddha was tempted in the same way. It's all through mythology. The gods are constantly tempting. Everybody and everything. So the idea of temptation is one of the things we struggle against, and the temptation obviously is the temptation to go to the dark side. One of the themes throughout the films is that the Sith lords, when they started out thousands of years ago, embraced the dark side. They were greedy and self-centered and they all wanted to take over, so they killed each other. Eventually, there was only one left, and that one took on an apprentice. And for thousands of years, the master would teach the apprentice, the master would die, the apprentice would then teach another apprentice, become the master, and so on. But there could never be any more than two of them, because if there were, they would try to get rid of the leader, which is exactly what Vader was trying to do, and that's exactly what the Emperor was trying to do. The Emperor was trying to get rid of Vader, and Vader was trying to get rid of the Emperor. And that is the antithesis of a symbiotic relationship, in which if you do that, you become cancer, and you eventually kill the host, and everything dies.
interview between George Lucas and Bill Moyer, published in Time April 26, 1999




So we have a whole "Force" and a "Dark Side" that prompts its users to act as a cancer. In that situation, a healthy balance would be to kill the cancer rather then try and achieve a balance between normal, whole tissue and cancerous tissue.

Metahive wrote:The whole prophecy is bogus either way. Only a few decades later the Sith are back, stronger than ever. So all the hooplah about virgin birth, chosenness, massive war and extermination events that surrounded Anakin Skywalker's life to buy precious few years (or none at all if you remember "Dark Lady of the Sith" Lumiya) of Sith absence. Was totally worth it, wasn't it?

Anakin Skywalker is then the only known (to me at least) instance of the Force itself taking a direct, physical hand in the Star Wars galaxy and does so in an attempt to destroy the most powerful users of the "Dark Side". That would indicate that something about the Banite Sith Order was directly and essentially dangerous to the Force itself and could no longer be ignored or the Jedi trusted to deal with as they had previous Sith Orders.


Admittedly, this line of thought requires the highest canon to not mention "Light Side" of the Force, so if it is referenced as such my claim falls apart.

Star Wars 888 wrote:The PT era OJO was flawed. The NJO still had its flawed (but it got better over time), but removing the "no attachments" rule was really good thinking on Luke's part. Contrary to turning people to the dark side, there were actually many occasions in which former NJO Jedi were redeemed by loved ones.

Did Luke even know there was a "no-attachments" rule?

We have the previously mentioned Kueller incident where the entire Population of Pydyr was wiped out and more death would have followed because a Jedi Student couldn't let go of his attachments. Let's not forget that Jacen Solo's fall was due in part to the fact that he was having visions about killing his uncle. I won't count Kyp Durron entirely because one can make the claim he destroyed Carida because he was possessed. But the loss of his brother was certainly a motivator in choosing Cardia as a target, and killing millions with the Sun Crusher.

Show me how these redemptions outweighed the harm done.

Star Wars 888 wrote:Actually, Anakin's prophecy was indeed relevant. Although he didn't annihilate the sith once and for all, he did save the Jedi Order. The other threats that you've listed were confronted by a powerful NJO. Therefore, although sith still popped up, there were Jedi to oppose them, thus saving the galaxy.

Well, actually he was the one who almost single-handedly brought them to the brink of ruin too, so no cookie here. As for the "powerful new Jedi Order", pah, once again the Jedi fail to clamp down upon the Sith before they manage to rise and take control over a good portion of the Galaxy with the effect of yet another ruinous civil war that gets forced upon the galaxy.
The Sith rise again and again and again...and it seems it's almost always because of Jedis of which a number will inevitably go rogue.

Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me when after centuries of force-induced strife the mundanes of the galaxy, moral and immoral, decide to do away with both orders for good and strangle every newborn that shows force-affinity right there in the crib.

Star Wars 888 wrote: Actually, Anakin's prophecy was indeed relevant. Although he didn't annihilate the sith once and for all, he did save the Jedi Order. The other threats that you've listed were confronted by a powerful NJO. Therefore, although sith still popped up, there were Jedi to oppose them, thus saving the galaxy.

If Anakin helps Windu instead of Palpatine then there are no more Sith and the galaxy is spared a few decades worth of horror. Throwing Palpatine down the shaft in the Death Star doesn't absolve him of that.

Is it really that hard to figure out? The prophecy was misinterpreted, Yoda thought that, Mace didn't believe it at all, and Obi Wan was under the impression Anakin was supposed to destroy the Sith. Palpatine corrupted the Chosen One, you can imply he did it as either another insult to the Jedi by stealing their chosen one or perhaps dodging the whole 'destroy the Sith' bit. That said, it turned on Palpatine in the end, perhaps a self fulfilling prophecy.

On the grand scheme of things, I hate the whole 'to balance the Force we need exact number of good Force users and bad Force users', thing. The Jedi are the champions of the Light Side and defenders of the Republic. This implies that they are the good guys and they defend the good guy civilization; however, the Republic is broken and corrupt but the Jedi still defend it unquestionably. So this makes the good guys defend the bad civilization which is a contradiction.

Enter the Dark Side of the Force and the Sith, they are agents of change. Can't have the Light Side defend evil, we need the good guys to fight for the light. So how do you do that? Well, you either have the bad civilization fall into ruin so people no longer think it's good when it's not, or you destroy the good guys so good guys aren't defending evil. Or, you do both.

Now new good guys are available to defend a new good guy civilization and bad guys can be in charge of evil civilizations. Balance restored.

Edit: to further expand on this,

I remember writing something similar to this years ago here. Palpatine was the cure for a corrupted broken Republic. Sure, he was evil and a powermonger, but the Republic was broken before him. He hastened the destruction of the Republic and made his Empire so that the Republic wouldn't limp along for decades, centuries more as a corrput and broken system. He swept it away quickly.

Now the problem is the get rid of the cure.

Enter Anakin.

One could say the Force knew exactly what it was doing. Setting up Palpatine as an agent of change to radically and massively change the galactic civilization and then putting into place a 'safety mechanism' of Anakin Skywalker to end the reign of Palpatine when enough change has happened.

Darth Fanboy wrote:

Star Wars 888 wrote: Actually, Anakin's prophecy was indeed relevant. Although he didn't annihilate the sith once and for all, he did save the Jedi Order. The other threats that you've listed were confronted by a powerful NJO. Therefore, although sith still popped up, there were Jedi to oppose them, thus saving the galaxy.

If Anakin helps Windu instead of Palpatine then there are no more Sith and the galaxy is spared a few decades worth of horror. Throwing Palpatine down the shaft in the Death Star doesn't absolve him of that.

Knife makes a good point (which, BTW, I was going to make ). The Republic was getting corrupt, and the Jedi sort of were too. The events of the PT and OT sort of let the Jedi and the Republic start anew.

^ What instances of corruption in the Republic that were not caused by Palpatine do you have, then?

Bottlestein wrote:^ What instances of corruption in the Republic that were not caused by Palpatine do you have, then?

The disturbingly large amount of corrupt senators.

I would of course ask for better evidence than a vague generalization. Yes there was corruption but Palpatine had harnessed that to use in his plans, he may have been using his influence to get corrupt senators in his control elected.

While there was doubtlessly large and unsettling amounts of corruption in the Old Republic and amongst its Senators, I have to question if that justifies unleashing Darth Sidious and the Galactic Empire upon citizens of the Star Wars universe. We know from various sources that Sidious had extensive contact and influence upon Trade Federation and other corporations of the era such as the rise of Nute Gunray. Powerful corporations dividing the attention and resources of the Republic while laying the foundation for their military forces were necessary elements to draw the Jedi into the massive trap that the Clone Wars were.

Additionally, I doubt the other Banite Sith Lords were sitting on their hands for the thousand years that the Jedi thought themselves triumphant. Corruption and internal weakening of the Republic would have suited the more subtle Banites well, laying the groundwork for future Dark Lords to take advantage of. Indeed, I wonder if there was a sort of Sith masterplan merely awaiting the proper conditions to occur or be manufactured within the Republic and galaxy at large that Darth Sidious finally set in motion.

Star Wars 888 wrote:The disturbingly large amount of corrupt senators.

Of course, once Palpy had his spiffy new Reich established, all corruption disappeared forever, the startrains ran on time and there were all those nice space highways that he had built and which were now open for the public. Bull and shit. If our world is any indication, at the latest when Palpy dissolved the senate and turned the various worlds and sectors into quasi-fiefdoms to be ruled by his quasi-vassals, corruption, cronyism, nepotism and the like should have been through the roof.

Also, as others have pointed out, I'd like some concrete evidence for widespread and serious "corruption" among the senators (which did non originate from Palpatine's machinations of course) and it'd better be 1890's Qing Dynasty level decay since anything less wouldn't really justify a violent overthrow.

Also, as others have pointed out, I'd like some concrete evidence for widespread and serious "corruption" among the senators (which did non originate from Palpatine's machinations of course) and it'd better be 1890's Qing Dynasty level decay since anything less wouldn't really justify a violent overthrow.

Hmmmm. The blockade of Naboo would appear to be a case of inefficient/corrupt government, but it's unclear on how much Palpatine was affecting the situation.

In the case of the Huk-Kaleesh War, we've got the case of the Republic siding entirely with the Huk, despite the fact that they were the aggressors and incredible pricks to the races they occupied. Granted, the Kaleesh were being led by Griveous and they committed war crimes, but the fact that the Huk got off scott-free suggests heavy corruption.

Those are the only two instances off the top of my head.

Talhe wrote:Hmmmm. The blockade of Naboo would appear to be a case of inefficient/corrupt government, but it's unclear on how much Palpatine was affecting the situation.

Ahem, since he himself ordered the blockade and the subsequent invasion I'd say a great lot.

In the case of the Huk-Kaleesh War, we've got the case of the Republic siding entirely with the Huk, despite the fact that they were the aggressors and incredible pricks to the races they occupied. Granted, the Kaleesh were being led by Griveous and they committed war crimes, but the fact that the Huk got off scott-free suggests heavy corruption.

Those are the only two instances off the top of my head.

Can siding with an arguably less moral side in a war be blamed on corruption alone? It might as well have been ideological reasons.

Knife, that is a very buddhist interpretation of the mechanics of the Force. Everything's going in cycles, but that also means there's no end to force-induced strife until the Universe dies the heat death (OK, that's hyperbole). That also means no one in the SW galaxy is really achieving anything because once comes the next cycle, all is washed away and the whole thing reset to zero.
That is a truly depressing look at Star Wars.

Metahive wrote:Knife, that is a very buddhist interpretation of the mechanics of the Force. Everything's going in cycles, but that also means there's no end to force-induced strife until the Universe dies the heat death (OK, that's hyperbole). That also means no one in the SW galaxy is really achieving anything because once comes the next cycle, all is washed away and the whole thing reset to zero.
That is a truly depressing look at Star Wars.

Not really. Your post represents what happens when someone who views time as a begining and end, a progression, looks at time as cyclic. People who look at it cyclic, not I BTW, don't see it that way at all.

As for the corruption;

Star Wars Trilogy hardback prologue wrote: So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within through the danger was not visible from outside.

Along with the PT where the courts 'take longer to settle things than the Senate' are the obvious examples.

Edit: Though to be fair, having just read that passage I was thinking of when I wrote my original post, you could interperate that as just Palpatine. I still hold to my version though.

So the "vast corruption" boils down to some institutional inertia...interesting.
To anyone well read on the novelization stuff:

How "bad" was Valorum; i.e. what specific instances of criminal corruption and power - peddling did he engage in that was not directly influenced by Palpy ?

Bottlestein wrote:So the "vast corruption" boils down to some institutional inertia...interesting.
To anyone well read on the novelization stuff:

How "bad" was Valorum; i.e. what specific instances of criminal corruption and power - peddling did he engage in that was not directly influenced by Palpy ?

In the novel, he was just as he was on film; ineffective. The problem is they never demonstrate much of his ineptitude to show why Palpatine/Amidala could just go "Throw the bitch out!". It's an interesting failing of the EU, especially since they go into some detail of his realization of Palpatine and his involvement with Bail Organa.

Metahive wrote: Also, as others have pointed out, I'd like some concrete evidence for widespread and serious "corruption" among the senators (which did non originate from Palpatine's machinations of course) and it'd better be 1890's Qing Dynasty level decay since anything less wouldn't really justify a violent overthrow.

In all likelihood there was probably plenty of "corruption" but just saying the word doesn't say much. Orn Free Taa is an example of this. Although he worked hard, generally cared for his people, and wasn't involved in anything illegal to my knowledge, he loved the opulence his position afforded him. Maybe there was a Senator who genuinely tried to do a very good job but he took a few credits on the side to lobby for a certain contractor or something. Certainly corrupt but not anything the Republic hadn't seen uncolunted times over the course of a thousand years.

Palpatine was the one who harnessed this atmosphere and further corrupted it. Just like he did with the Trade Federation, he got these beings in a little bit and then pulled them in further as both Palpatine and as Sidious.

Ghost Rider wrote: In the novel, he was just as he was on film; ineffective. The problem is they never demonstrate much of his ineptitude to show why Palpatine/Amidala could just go "Throw the bitch out!". It's an interesting failing of the EU, especially since they go into some detail of his realization of Palpatine and his involvement with Bail Organa.

The most they go into his ineffectiveness is when he is forced to ask Amidala to defer to a committee, which isn't so much is fault but the bureaucracy's. To me it seems obvious that Palpatine is using that bureaucracy to play Amidala in order to get that vote of no confidence. If Padme isn't so worried for the sake of her people being opressed on Naboo, she probably places more trust in the Chancellor who she even admits is one of their biggest supporters. It is even possible that Palpatine as Sidious told the Trade Federation and Malastare to do everything they could to delay the Naboo investigation.