Revenge of the Sith

[Sundown]

You bring up a great point on morality.  However, my response to that question is this:  the person that I'm trying to save is someone I know and therefor love.  The other beings that would die or otherwise be sacrificed are people I don't know or even care to know-I don't love those people and I never will.  Consequently, I would choose what Anakin chose. 

I'm not sure subjective "love" is something that justifies us when we choose to harm many others to save a few we personally prefer. Protecting them is one thing, as certainly is defending them. But the wholesale harm of many who don't pose an intentional threat to our loved ones' well-being-- even though their living might mean our loved ones' dying in some convoluted way-- that's a whole 'nother ball game. It's only under this sort of twisted "love" that killing children can even be humored as being vaguely justifiable.

I'm also not quite sure our lack of love and the fact that we don't happen to know folks makes harming them any more acceptable. It makes it easier for us to commit harm and live with ourselves, yeah... but this phoenomena is exactly what allowed folks like Hitler and Stalin to kill millions. They neither loved them nor knew them, and well, that seemed to work just fine for them.

Also take into consideration that the only people that Anakin ever truly loved were his mother and Padme-both of which he was convinced had died and would die, respectively,  because of his oath and ties to the Jedi; it's obvious why he chose what he did.

But see, it's arguable here that Anakin "truly loved" Padme. Some definitions of love go beyond more than physical attraction, attachment, longing for that person to satisfy ones own needs and desires, and the fear of pain in their possible absence. And certain definitions of love would actually deny and refuse to act upon all of these things.

I mean, if we define "love" as being looking out for a person's good, comitting ourselves to their best, perhaps even forgoing our own sake to ensure that-- then it casts doubt on whether choosing to harm many others for the sake of our own favorites is really "love" at all.

I mean, if we sacrifice many for their sake, then we make their lives mean little more than this in the scope of the universe: They were the object of selfish and arbitrary favoritism that in turn lead to the unjustified and preventable suffering of many.

And I guess I just can't think of condeming them to this fate, just because we wanted them around for another few decades, as being for their "good", really.

-Al

[RainBot]

Is it really selfish to keep your loved ones alive?

Is it really selfish to somehow prevent something disastrous to happen to someone you love?

No, it's not selfish to keep your loved ones alive. It's not selfish to prevent something disastrous from happening to someone you love.

It IS selfish when doing so results in the death of someone else.

Given a choice to save an entire star system or your loved one, what is your decision?

I would let a thousand galaxies die in order to save a loved one.

Your desire to save a whole world of strangers who may or may not turn against you is also selfish, becauseit is based on your preference to adere to your own morals. The people on these worlds are strangers - you don't know them, therefore are capeable of all aspects of humanity, unlike your mate, whom you know intimately and can TRUST - something a stranger can never have - if they could, they wouldn't be a stranger.

"It IS selfish when doing so results in the death of someone else."

You argument is illogical and circular. You have a complete stranger beside you who will be shot if you don't help your mate from certain death. You would sooner save the stranger than your mate.

Undateable!

[Stamen0083]

Your desire to save a whole world of strangers who may or may not turn against you is also selfish, becauseit is based on your preference to adere to your own morals. The people on these worlds are strangers - you don't know them, therefore are capeable of all aspects of humanity, unlike your mate, whom you know intimately and can TRUST - something a stranger can never have - if they could, they wouldn't be a stranger.

Whether the whole world may or may not turn against me does not factor into my decision to sacrifice one to save many. Besides, I don't think it is selfish for me to grieve a little to save millions of others from grief.

One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic. Of course, this conveniently forgets the fact that each of those deaths is a tragedy in itself.

If adhering to my morals is wrong, I don't want to be right.

You argument is illogical and circular. You have a complete stranger beside you who will be shot if you don't help your mate from certain death. You would sooner save the stranger than your mate.

Of course, when it comes down to one on one, selfishness will prevail and I will choose to save my friend. However, when knowing that saving ONE friend means sacrificing millions, I simply cannot do it.

You are right. It is also selfish in wanting to save those millions over one friend because I do not want to live with the guilt that my inaction caused millions to die and their loved ones to grieve.

[mikeszekely]

But the choice isn't so clear cut. It's not necessarily one or the other. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

I mean, you can chose to stick to the plan. You'll probably save the lives of millions, but there's still a chance something else could go awry. And your friend will almost certainly die.

Abandoning the plan puts the lives of millions in jeopardy, but you'll almost certainly save your friend. After saving your friend, there's still a 50/50 chance that you can regroup, finish the mission, and still save the lives of millions.

What do you choose then?

Let's go a little further... suppose your friend is a brilliant scientist. Your friend is close to a breakthrough on a new incredibly cheap and abundant energy source. If completed, it will make it possible to construct a planetary shield on to reduce the sun's rays to more tolerable levels. It will also make it possible to transport large ammounts of water (ice) from Hoth and Rhen Var to Tatooine, givine the desert world an ample supply. With your friend's new energy source, it would be possible to turn Tatooine into a lush world like Naboo, and the crops grown on Tatooine could help feed other improverished planets (although, in theory, the terraforming of other less-hospitable worlds could make them less impoverished and more self-sufficient).

However, to rescue your friend, you will definately allow and entire planet to be destroyed. This planet, though, is populated by a most lazy and unambitious race. They do not bother with any industry or even agriculture. They simply subside off the Republic's wellfare program, which provides them with food, housing, and spending money.

Do you sacrifice a billion people who bring no value to society, in order to save one person who could benefit billions more?

[Stamen0083]

Do you sacrifice a billion people who bring no value to society, in order to save one person who could benefit billions more?

Of course not. These things must always be taken into consideration.

I was talking about the situation where no one is more important than anyone else. Strictly speaking, my friend is important to me only because he/she is my friend, and would otherwise not be worth more or less than anyone else. Given that everyone is equal, would you save the one you love or the billions of strangers you don't?

[JsARCLIGHT]

OK, this is a weird question I have to pose here: why is everyone crediting Vader with killing millions of people on a planet? I'm pretty sure it was Moff Tarkin that ordered Alderaan be blasted... Vader just stood by and watched. To my knowledge the only direct creditable kills to vader (not Anakin) are a fair number of jedi, the seperatist leaders, a handful of rebel pilots above the Death Star and Obiwan (sort of). Giving Vader credit for all the evil of the Empire is like giving Field Marshall Rommel credit for all the atrocities of the Nazis in WW2.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

[Agent ONE]

OK, this is a weird question I have to pose here: why is everyone crediting Vader with killing millions of people on a planet? I'm pretty sure it was Moff Tarkin that ordered Alderaan be blasted... Vader just stood by and watched. To my knowledge the only direct creditable kills to vader (not Anakin) are a fair number of jedi, the seperatist leaders, a handful of rebel pilots above the Death Star and Obiwan (sort of). Giving Vader credit for all the evil of the Empire is like giving Field Marshall Rommel credit for all the atrocities of the Nazis in WW2.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

No dude, you have a perfect understanding... Vader was not evil.

[Hurin]

OK, this is a weird question I have to pose here: why is everyone crediting Vader with killing millions of people on a planet? I'm pretty sure it was Moff Tarkin that ordered Alderaan be blasted... Vader just stood by and watched. To my knowledge the only direct creditable kills to vader (not Anakin) are a fair number of jedi, the seperatist leaders, a handful of rebel pilots above the Death Star and Obiwan (sort of). Giving Vader credit for all the evil of the Empire is like giving Field Marshall Rommel credit for all the atrocities of the Nazis in WW2.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Rommel was out in the field in Africa or preparing the defenses in Normandy. He wasn't standing next to the Commandant of Aushwitz while the Commandant was pulling the lever in the gas chambers.

Rommel is a bad analogy. Vader is not Rommel. Vader is the Commandant of Aushwitz, the person Palpatine turns to when it's time to commit unspeakable acts.

Of course, murdering your subordinates every time they screw up isn't exactly "good" either. Taking pleasure in it (as he obviously does) makes you downright evil.

I'm surprised A1 is taking this particular angle at stirring things up. . . knowing his politics, I'm disturbed that he'd get onboard with the "evil doesn't exist, it's all in your point of view" hippy band-wagon.

[Opus]

Somethings been bugging me so I'm going to rant here for a sec.

I think I liked Vader better when I didn't know anything about him. It's kinda lame how these days it seems that every vilian has to have a tragic sob story and heros only kill as a defense. What's wrong with being evil because you're evil? I first noticed this kind of thing when I saw Coppola's butchery of Dracula. In the book he never had a reason for being bad he just was and likewise the heros felt no remorse or pitty in destroying a monster. Now Darth Vader has the same weenie "lost love made me evil" thing and Obi-Wan couldn't finish the job.

I think it'd been better if he'd at least had a personality change to go with his new suit. The whole James Earl Jones voiced whining sucked. were I the director I'd have scraped all of that and had Vader utter one simple classic Vader line. "What is your bidding my master?". Then I'd have felt like the transformation from Anakin to Vader was complete.

It feels good to get it out.

[Hurin]

Somethings been bugging me so I'm going to rant here for a sec.

I think I liked Vader better when I didn't know anything about him. It's kinda lame how these days it seems that every vilian has to have a tragic sob story and heros only kill as a defense. What's wrong with being evil because you're evil? I first noticed this kind of thing when I saw Coppola's butchery of Dracula. In the book he never had a reason for being bad he just was and likewise the heros felt no remorse or pitty in destroying a monster. Now Darth Vader has the same weenie "lost love made me evil" thing and Obi-Wan couldn't finish the job.

I think it'd been better if he'd at least had a personality change to go with his new suit. The whole James Earl Jones voiced whining sucked. were I the director I'd have scraped all of that and had Vader utter one simple classic Vader line. "What is your bidding my master?". Then I'd have felt like the transformation from Anakin to Vader was complete.

It feels good to get it out.

Opus, I think this is what you're trying to say:

[KingNor]

I'd have scraped all of that and had Vader utter one simple classic Vader line. "What is your bidding my master?".

seriously, how come fans can think of this stuff and Luke-ass thinks of stuff like "raa me vader, nooooeee!!"

why the HELL do these movie guys get paid so much when they can't think of stuff HALF as good as their fanbase can.

[Opus]

Somethings been bugging me so I'm going to rant here for a sec.

I think I liked Vader better when I didn't know anything about him. It's kinda lame how these days it seems that every vilian has to have a tragic sob story and heros only kill as a defense. What's wrong with being evil because you're evil? I first noticed this kind of thing when I saw Coppola's butchery of Dracula. In the book he never had a reason for being bad he just was and likewise the heros felt no remorse or pitty in destroying a monster. Now Darth Vader has the same weenie "lost love made me evil" thing and Obi-Wan couldn't finish the job.

I think it'd been better if he'd at least had a personality change to go with his new suit. The whole James Earl Jones voiced whining sucked. were I the director I'd have scraped all of that and had Vader utter one simple classic Vader line. "What is your bidding my master?". Then I'd have felt like the transformation from Anakin to Vader was complete.

It feels good to get it out.

Opus, I think this is what you're trying to say:

That's pretty much it.

[Opus]

I'd have scraped all of that and had Vader utter one simple classic Vader line. "What is your bidding my master?".

seriously, how come fans can think of this stuff and Luke-ass thinks of stuff like "raa me vader, nooooeee!!"

why the HELL do these movie guys get paid so much when they can't think of stuff HALF as good as their fanbase can.

Don't worry I'm sure it'll show up in the third SE rerelease 20 years from now.

[bsu legato]

Wait, how does Vader's less-than-evil youth somehow lessen his menace as and adult Sith Lord? Should he have been evil from birth? This is just silly. LEt me ask you this: Does the knowledge that young Hitler was a mediocre painter in Vienna make him any less of an evil tyrant and an insane genocidal monster?

Edit: Opus makes a good point with Coppola's Dracula, but I would have to point out that in the book Dracula wasn't even a character. He was just a monster with zero motivations, other than the fact that he was evil. Vader on the other hand hasn't been a one-dimensional boogeyman since Empire.

Edited June 7, 2005 by bsu legato

[JsARCLIGHT]

My only quam is with everyone calling him a genocidal, planet killing monster. He did not throw the switch nor display any genocidal traits in the movies. Albeit he was in the same room as said switch and was there to see the results and did not lift a finger to stop it but being the right sword hand of the Emperor and being some sort of twisted maniacal monster are two different things.

I always saw Vader not as the murderer but the enforcer of the Empire. His image was more of fear of death than him actually killing you. His actions where all quite deliberate but very few of them I feel where done out of bloodlust or want for carnage or to wipe people out. The prequels paint him as a person seeking order, total order. All his actions are more or less done to control rather than destroy. His killing of subordinates is more or less him eliminating malfunctioning parts of his perfect machine. Yes, killing is wrong but there are several levels in which Vader choses not to kill. I guess I just see him more of a calculating control freak than a homicidal maniac. The prequels frame Vader more as a victim of circomstance than someone who willingly chooses to murder and destroy and conquer. His fall to the dark side is under the auspice that he will gain the power to control, not the power to destroy.

Then again this is all just my interpretation of the character from all the movies. Everyone seemingly has differing views on Vader now that the series is complete. Heck Lucas himself most likely has a totally different view than all of us combined and in several interviews he claims to have patterned the character of Vader on Henry Kissinger.

Edited June 7, 2005 by JsARCLIGHT

[Opus]

Wait, how does Vader's less-than-evil youth somehow lessen his menace as and adult Sith Lord? Should he have been evil from birth? This is just silly. LEt me ask you this: Does the knowledge that young Hitler was a mediocre painter in Vienna make him any less of an evil tyrant and an insane genocidal monster?

That's not really the point. He could have been good and turned bad without having been such a childish suckwad. Lucas tried to make me pity Anakin but he created such an unlikeable character that I was dissapointed that he was Vader.

[EXO]

A lot of evil people will prolly disappoint you if you see them. Caligula was a midget, no hair on his head but his body was covered with it. Anyone who mentioned the word sheep gets killed on the spot.

Nero, Elizabeth of Bathory, Bloody Mary... all geeky looking.

Now Rasputin... one scary mofo...

And Russel Crowe... he's scary evil too. Especially with a phone in his hands. They should make a McFarlane figure out of that

Edited June 7, 2005 by >EXO<

[Sumdumgai]

Of course, murdering your subordinates every time they screw up isn't exactly "good" either. Taking pleasure in it (as he obviously does) makes you downright evil.

I disagree, murdering your subordinates for being incompetent, retarded, and screw ups is perfectly understandable.

Haven't you ever wanted to strangle that retarded delivery boy who couldn't deliver a package to you, despite having your address, door codes to the building, and having written which apartment you live in?

Or the smartass little upstart that gets all in your face because you like anime (or you practice the force and can strangle the dumbass).

I see it less as murder and more as... [Palpatine-ish pause and intonations] Humane euthenasia. Euthenase incompetent people, for a safer and more secure society!

[bsu legato]

Lucas tried to make me pity Anakin but he created such an unlikeable character that I was dissapointed that he was Vader.

You may have not liked Anakin as a character, but the choices that he's forced to make should be something you can empathize with, right or wrong. We've already had somebody here in this thread step up to the plate and admit that the lives of billions are nothing next to the life of a loved one. I recall some posters on MW not being bothered by the prospect of killing the Tuskens, a'la AOTC, either. Anakin himself may have been a dink, but the path he chooses is one we should all be able to understand.

[Agent ONE]

...

I'm surprised A1 is taking this particular angle at stirring things up. . . knowing his politics, I'm disturbed that he'd get onboard with the "evil doesn't exist, it's all in your point of view" hippy band-wagon.

I eat liberal pussies for breakfast, and I am not saying that "evil doesn't exist, it's all in your point of view." Evil DOES exist, I just don't see it with Anikin. He saw both the Jedi and Palpatine as selfish and power hungry, they were both evil in his eyes... He chose the better option because he thought he could save his wife if he helped Palpatine. I would have made the exact same choice, and I am not evil. My GF agrees, Anikin is a victim, forced into evil behavior with good (but selfish) intentions.

As far as world conflict goes, yeah there IS evil sometimes, but most of the time both sides think they are right.

[Anubis]

I kind of agree with Agent on that one.

Anakin did see that both sides had stuff that was wrong. He KNEW the dark side was bad news, but he also knew he couldn't trust the Jedi anymore with their own shadow plays and violating their own rules.

Jedi aren't supposed to spy on friends. Anakin went looking for guidance and instead got told he needed to let what he cared about go. He got denied the Jedi Master title, even though he was on the council. The jedi could have denied the appointment entirely if they wanted instead of that slap in the face. They purposefully let Anakin sit there so he could be a double agent for them, and Anakin knew it. They didn't even give him the "watch Palpatine" assignment in the chambers, they had Obi-wan tell him on the side. Shady, and if they knew or cared about Anakin enough, they would have realized they were going to piss him off. Then they didn't give him a voice even though he had a seat. I might have to read the book to see the extra detail some of you guys mentioned.

The Jedi stabbed him in the back, shaking the whole foundation of the moral pillar the Jedi were supposed to be on. Windu even said "If what you say is true, you will have gained my trust." What did Anakin do to Windu for him not to trust Anakin? At that point nothing, yes he was a hothead and yes he had an ego, but Obi-wan trusted him with his life and the others knew he was a good Jedi.

Anakin's dreams about his mother were dead-on, and he knew that Padme was in trouble if he was having those visions/dreams again.

Palpatine offered a solution, and as he was a close friend and mentor to Anakin, Anakin didn't have a reason to think Palpatine wouldn't have hooked him up as promised.

Until then Anakin knew the Sith were bad, but that was because the Jedi said so. They shook Anakin's trust in them, wheras Palpatine offered Anakin the opportunity to do more, to achieve his potential, and save his wife. Neither of which the Jedi offered him. So when it came down to Windu or Palpatine, he instinctually choose palpatine. It was the better offer.

Evil is often a point of view. For instance he had no qualms about force choking Admiral Ozzel. In that case though you could call it a battlefield execution because Ozzel's actions did cost extra Imperial lives. It was not his first screw up either. "You have failed me for the LAST TIME." He probably botched a number of operations. Blowing the Hoth ambush was the last straw.

We recognize Vader as the bad guy, but he may not have necessarily seen himself as the bad guy. The rebels were terrorists as far as the empire was concerned.

This makes for good philosphical fodder. Nice discussion.

Edited June 7, 2005 by Anubis

[Opus]

Lucas tried to make me pity Anakin but he created such an unlikeable character that I was dissapointed that he was Vader.

You may have not liked Anakin as a character, but the choices that he's forced to make should be something you can empathize with, right or wrong. We've already had somebody here in this thread step up to the plate and admit that the lives of billions are nothing next to the life of a loved one. I recall some posters on MW not being bothered by the prospect of killing the Tuskens, a'la AOTC, either. Anakin himself may have been a dink, but the path he chooses is one we should all be able to understand.

I never said I couldn't empathize with his situation. I merely stated that Anakin was such a poncy little git that it detracted from Vader's image. Now when he force chokes someone instead of thinking he's just an evil badass I just think he probably missed his nap or has a dirty diapy. I guess it just doesn't live up to my expectations.

i never try to force my opinions on anyone but isn't my ending to the movie much better..

[Sundown]

I would let a thousand galaxies die in order to save a loved one.

Your desire to save a whole world of strangers who may or may not turn against you is also selfish, becauseit is based on your preference to adere to your own morals. The people on these worlds are strangers - you don't know them, therefore are capeable of all aspects of humanity, unlike your mate, whom you know intimately and can TRUST - something a stranger can never have - if they could, they wouldn't be a stranger.

Whoa there, buddy. I'm not sure how following we think should be done, even despite our personal preferences and gain is automatically selfish. Just because we adhere to what we think is right for the sake of others doesn't mean we're serving ourselves... especially when it causes us loss and suffering.

Yes, morality makes us selfish when we do it in order to be "better" people in our eyes and in others' eyes, and to be able to think of ourselves as such. But if morality guides us into acting for the sake of others alone, then it remains a selfless act.

Furthermore, just because we want something doesn't automatically mean it's selfish. It becomes selfish if we make it only about ourselves, our pleasure, our avoidance of personal pain, and make it all about pushing off all this suffering and harm onto someone else-- or many someone elses. Unless we're arguing that there's simply no such thing as a selfless act... but I'm not quite sure I'd buy that.

You argument is illogical and circular. You have a complete stranger beside you who will be shot if you don't help your mate from certain death. You would sooner save the stranger than your mate.

It's actually pure, hard, and cold logic that states that a stranger is just as deserving of being saved as your loved one. One in fact has to be very rational and be able to see things from a bigger perspective to be able to make this sort of decision. Decisions made by personal preference and impulses aren't ones made purely by logic per se. In fact, they usually cloud our thinking.

But still, I'm pretty much sure most of us would choose a loved one over a single stranger. A billion strangers, however, starts to weigh the costs involved in this choice differently.

And lastly, there's a difference between choosing between our loved ones and others... and actually taking the sword ourselves to off a million people for loved ones' sake.

Someone else quoted Jesus earlier, and his words seems to fit here too. He had a rather simple solution to all this mess. Love everyone. Everyone is your neighbor and brother. From your best buddy to the homeless guy on the corner... and especially your traditional, cultural, and ethnic enemies. There are no real strangers. Jesus actually exposes and takes away our last refuge that allow us to cause others to suffer-- that we don't love and that we don't know them-- and puts the responsibility of loving and knowing others squarely upon us. Apathy for others is no longer justification and excuse for the things we do... it's actually central to our guilt when we cause harm. Yeah, seems pretty impossible to love everyone, or even just a few more strangers by our own efforts, but I guess that's what Jesus's earlier quote is supposed to come in.

-Al

[Sundown]

I just don't see it with Anikin. He saw both the Jedi and Palpatine as selfish and power hungry, they were both evil in his eyes... He chose the better option because he thought he could save his wife if he helped Palpatine.

My GF agrees, Anikin is a victim, forced into evil behavior with good (but selfish) intentions.

I'm not sure I see that with Anakin. I mean I can understand his motivations... but a man's gotta draw lines somewhere. There's a difference between trying to save his wife... and killing children. It almost seems to me that Anakin bumped into the perfect motivation to allow his baser and more evil characteristics to flourish... and towards the end, it almost appeared as if he was mostly hiding behind the excuse of "saving Padme". I mean the guy almost kills her-- his entire "motivation" for doing all that he's done in the first place.

I would have made the exact same choice, and I am not evil.

Many of us might do something similar, turning to the lesser of two apparent evils to save a loved one... but would we in the next moment start killing children and then come dangerously close to killing our mate? His transition is abrupt and non-sensical if we're talking about normal, sane, decent people, which I assume you're one of.

It's either really bad character writing or Anakin's got an evil streak a mile wide. I'm betting it's a bit of both.

As far as world conflict goes, yeah there IS evil sometimes, but most of the time both sides think they are right.

Yep. Evil's best trick is appear to be "good". Or at least neutral, the new "good" in this spring's fashion lineup.

-Al

[Gaijin]

Some of the world's most evil people think they are righteous. In their mind, they aren't the bad ones at all. In fact, they think they're good. This stems from the common thief up to the crazed dictator.

When I interview perps for minor things like theft and assault, many in fact think they did nothing wrong at all. The more serious ones are worse. And, there are the people who are not criminals, but just a prick in everyday life to everyone..they think they are the second coming of good in the world.

More often than not, the whole good and evil thing walks a grey line.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

His fall to the dark side is under the auspice that he will gain the power to control, not the power to destroy.

But that's like trusting a murderer to babysit the galaxy. People aren't thinking of the big picture. They are thinking "Gee I feel sorry for the guy when he was still a good guy struggling to make the right choice, so now that he is completely evil I should make excuses for him and actually agree that what he is doing is right, when it isn't."

If he was right the empire should have beat the alliance and the good guys would have lost in ep6. My stance is: "Tell the whiney brat he made many mistakes and remind him each time that he was wrong, wrong, wrong. You are doing him a service (as opposed to doing this for yourself) and he will actually thank you later when he comes to realise his mistake when the good in him finally destroys the evil in him. It's a battle in the head as much as a physical battle. But the battle in the head, the internal battle to gain control of the real him (as oposed to the shell of a man that the sith lord manipulates like a puppet) has to come first. The internal battle is the important part because if he can deny that "the dark path is righteous", then luke won't have to kill his dad which he loves, or join the emperor in a dictatorial rule over the galaxy by giving in to hate in the vain hope of one day getting the chance to kill the emeror in his sleep which will only replace one evil with another evil, but ultimately result in strengthening that evil because a stronger recruit has now joined the dark side.

There are countless innocents hoping and praying that this "hero who saves us", from a prophecy, does the right thing and people are freed from enslavement from the empire. After all anakin should know as a former slave himself, being freed by a jedi, what suffering under a ruler must be like.

That could be you being killed by imperial storm troopers, or your family that was on a planet blown away by the death star. Think big! Whatever probs the jedi council had is no excuse for siding with the sith and believing thier point of view. These are people who murder thier own master FFS and who lie, and decieve to gain power for themselves. Self serving motivations vs selfless sacrifices for something bigger than yourself.

What people forget is that the only reason Anakin chose the dark path was because he was cunningly manipulated by palpatine to make it look like palp was a victim in all this when he was the schemer. The scene where he pretends to be captured, the scene where he pretends to be a weak old man being beaten by a strong jedi must send an impression to anakin that: "Man he must be on to something here, a healthy strong jedi against an unarmed old man begging for mercy, Phuck these jedi bitches, I'm joining the sith, phucking hypocrites!" But the problem was it was all a "set up", an actor in a play, a political manuever to show anakin the bits and pieces he needed to see to convince him the good guys were actually evil, instead of showing him the full picture - showing him the truth. The sith would turn the power against everyone once the jedi obstacle was out of the way.

Anakin gulped it all up because palp could sense the fears and uncertainty in anakin's mind and played with his mind using him as a tool in his sceheme and to rub salt in the wound anakin didn't even get what palpatine was going to promise anyway. Once something more useful to his scheme came (Luke) Palp was quite ready to allow his "friend" be killed.

Whereas the good guys care about thier friends (and strangers too), but are prepared to die fighting for the cause, the bad guys care about themselves hoping not to die and to instead live forever selfisly ruling over others as thier immortal master, hopefully for an eternity. Anakin became one of the bad guys when he viewed power itself as the main goal rather than trying to use it for good purposes. (take mace's judgment of not allowing palp a fair defense, I would have done the same thing and ended it right there, without worrying about some snotty little kid with uber powers changing my view when I'm not the one being manipulated and tricked here.)

By letting vader realise everything he ever did was a mistake from the begining and showing him examples of how painful the wrong path was, (eg showing him a video of him choking padme, showing him footage of him killing children who trusted him, reminding him that palpatine lied all along and didn't have the power to stop padme's death in the first place) and forcing him to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong, you can correct him. It's just that vader had no real incentive to admit he was wrong so long as he kept believing one day he could kill sidious and have the power to himself or .....to see his son succeeding in the correct path.

That's why the darkside is "seductive", because once you buy into it by rationalising what it can give you, and how you can use it to do good, its hard to let go of. (similar to boromir from lord of the rings who was quite prepared to kill an innocent person for the power to bring peace to his people. It's all a lie, even if he had been given the chance to use the power to change the fate of his people, something else would go wrong and the good guys would get corrupt by that power and do bad things because the power starts to control them and they become too proud and arrogant. Then we are back at square one and good people start to misuse the power, but constantly thinking they are "right" in doing so. The bitterness then morphs into hate and mistrust of others around you, and this mistrust leads to fear etc Then when anyone disagrees, you are seen as the enemy, the bad guy, the guy being "jealous", the guy "holding people back" etc when all you want to do is tell it as it is.)

Edited June 8, 2005 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Hurin]

We recognize Vader as the bad guy, but he may not have necessarily seen himself as the bad guy.

As far as world conflict goes, yeah there IS evil sometimes, but most of the time both sides think they are right.

Has it occured to all us psuedo-philosophers that how a person sees himself and his motivations is ultimately irrelevant when judging someone's actions?

Generally, you can mark the low point in any discussion when Hitler is mentioned, but since he's already been mentioned. . . Hitler had a point of view. He thought what he was doing was a good thing. That's his view. But he was objectively evil. He's probably the last example of evil that the Left is willing to concede actually exists. Everyone else simply has a "point of view" that differs.

It doesn't matter how or why a villain such as Vader rationalizes what he does, it only matters that he is murdering children, subordinates, and knowingly, actively, and enthusiastically supporting and enforcing a regime that murders billions or even trillions (these are planets we're talking about, not cities or even continents), enslaves even more (wookies, etc.). Vader may have convinced himself that he is doing the right thing (though I would debate even this because at this point, I don't think he cares what the "right thing" is anymore). . . but his viewpoint can also be wrong. Just because someone is convinced what they are doing is good or right, doesn't make it so. We don't have to just get all Hippy-ish and say: "Well, if he thinks that, there must be some truth to it and who are we to judge?"

At some point, there is a line. At some point, as the actions become more atrocious, morality moves out of the "majority rules" or "shades of grey" realm and become objectively, starkly concrete. I'd say Vader's actions obviously fit into this latter category as downright friggin' evil. His motivations stop mattering after a certain point. . .

I seriously worry about people who say that they would have done exactly what Anakin did. It's also funny to me that you guys seem to see Vader as someone who is only seeking power to do good (at least in his own mind). It is obvious by just Anakin's tone in EpIII prior to the duel that he now simply wants power for its own sake. . . for his sake.

Regarding Yoda giving bad advice to Anakin (someone mentioned it along with the Jedi mistreating Anakin): Keep in mind (as we've said before) that the advice Yoda gave Anakin would probably have worked for a Jedi who had taken the Jedi Code more seriously. Yoda didn't know Anakin was married and had grown that attached to anyone. . . because he shouldn't have. Aw screw it, I'm just going to paste what I wrote to a friend (in a light-hearted tone). . .

From the Jedi Council's point of view. . . Anakin has whined and moaned that he's being "held back" since before they were doing anything that could even remotely be seen as doing so. Hell, they did him a friggin' *favor* by allowing him to become a Jedi in the first place (which was, in hindsight, a mistake where the Jedi Order is concerned even if it did eventually lead to the destruction of the Sith in RotJ). How does he repay their kindness of overlooking the age restrictions and just plain bad vibe they were getting off of him? Oh, well, he pretty much breaks every "thou shalt not" in the Jedi rulebook. First and foremost, he takes a wife. . . and, of course, that *leads* to him having to come to Yoda about a problem that he shouldn't even have and can't even be honest with Yoda about.

The kid wasn't a very good Jedi. I'm glad he's dead.

H

Edit: Very, very (years) late edit to fix the apostrophes in the purple quote above. At some point they had all been converted to "question mark symbol thingies" (been known to happen when MySQL databases are imported into certain versions of MySQL).

Edited September 13, 2006 by Hurin

[mikeszekely]

OK, this is a weird question I have to pose here: why is everyone crediting Vader with killing millions of people on a planet? I'm pretty sure it was Moff Tarkin that ordered Alderaan be blasted... Vader just stood by and watched. To my knowledge the only direct creditable kills to vader (not Anakin) are a fair number of jedi, the seperatist leaders, a handful of rebel pilots above the Death Star and Obiwan (sort of). Giving Vader credit for all the evil of the Empire is like giving Field Marshall Rommel credit for all the atrocities of the Nazis in WW2.

Or is there something else I'm missing here?

We're not saying that Vader did kill millions of people to save a loved one. We're saying that, during the Clone Wars, Anakin disobeyed orders and put missions and the lives of others in jeopardy, just to save Obi-wan.

That was kind of my point. Most people wouldn't knowingly sacrifice a number of strangers to save a single loved one, and risking those lives was against the Jedi Code... so Anakin wasn't a good Jedi. But I think most of us would take a gamble that others may or may not be put in danger if a loved one definately was, and you thought you could help them... which was really all Anakin did.

[Uxi]

No, that's not true. Anakin wanted to defy the natural order of things and keep the people he loved from passing out of his life, but that's just not possible. All of us must ultimately face the fact of our mortality and those we love and Anakin refused to do this. Anakin made a pact with the devil and sold his soul in the vain hope that Sidious' deceitful delusion of being stronger than death was real and that he wasn't just being manipulated by the true evil. In doing so, Anakin's good nature was twisted into evil. And that's what the prequels were all about and why Lucas picked Anakin to be a little boy in Episode I: he wanted to show how a good selfless child with good intentions is twisted into a whiny and wreckless apprentice and on the eve of being the galaxy's greatest hero is perverted into it's greatest villain. He's corrupted by power he should have never been trained to use.

It was Vader who becamed the Emperor's thug, killing and sowing destruction while the Emperor himself played the coy hermit. The correct Nazi model for Vader is not Rommel or the head of Auchwitz, but rather more along the lines of someone utterly despicable and wicked like Heinrich Himmler.

Edited June 8, 2005 by Uxi

[mikeszekely]

No, that's not true. Anakin wanted to defy the natural order of things and keep the people he loved from passing out of his life, but that's just not possible.

I was refering specifically to the mentions of him disobeying orders to save Obi-wan, not anything else he did.

[Opus]

I think I've figured out why Vader was so evil. He had his winky burned off by lava.

[Sumdumgai]

I think I've figured out why Vader was so evil. He had his winky burned off by lava.

If that were the case I think he'd be doing more of a Dark Helmet.

"Yes. That!"

Force crush their testicles. Now that would hurt! Plus it's not fatal.

[mechaninac]

I have to agree with Hurin's point of view on Vader. To put it bluntly, in the simplest of terms: Evil is as evil does.

[Warmaker]

Up until the point where Anakin strikes Mace Windu and declares his allegiance to Sidious, his decisions wouldn't have been far off what I think many people would do or consider doing.

Risking alot to save a friend or loved one.

For all of Anakin's b****ing and whining about Obi-Wan "holding him back," Anakin risked life, limb, and operational success to save his friend. NUMEROUS TIMES, even from Obi-Wan's own admissions from the books and movies.

And I still see no fault in him trying to save his wife and unborn son (which of course turned out to include a daughter also). For a man to willingly and knowingly sacrifice his family, without doing anything about it, is completely unacceptable.

But yes, there is a corner that Anakin turned on his own choice. Once murder & slaughter was involved, that was it.

As for the Jedi Council doing Anakin a favor by actually allowing him to join the Order, it worked both ways. He became a Jedi, but the Order got their beloved "Chosen One," to be used as a tool.

Edited June 8, 2005 by Warmaker

[Hurin]

For all of Anakin's b****ing and whining about Obi-Wan "holding him back," Anakin risked life, limb, and operational success to save his friend.  NUMEROUS TIMES, even from Obi-Wan's own admissions from the books and movies.

Yes, but this was well after AotC. We only see this in the latest movie. He was b1tching and moaning well before he had ever done anything of account.

And I still see no fault in him trying to save his wife and unborn son (which of course turned out to include a daughter also).  For a man to willingly and knowingly sacrifice his family, without doing anything about it, is completely unacceptable.

Who had a problem with that? I'm not sure who you're arguing with here. Nobody ever said Anakin should have done nothing. We're merely saying that there are limits. . . as you yourself say here:

But yes, there is a corner that Anakin turned on his own choice.  Once murder & slaughter was involved, that was it.

Well. . . yeah!

As for the Jedi Council doing Anakin a favor by actually allowing him to join the Order, it worked both ways.

Anakin felt he was being used as a tool. And Sidious encouraged him to feel that way. Yet he wasn't being used any more than any other Jedi. He just resented following the Jedi code and not being given personal power and glory. Which is very un-Jedi-like. The Jedi made a mistake in taking him in at such an old age. Even though, in the very end (RotJ), it was the right decision because Vader kills Palpatine. But the cost is staggering.

And I'm not sure the Jedi cared much for the trade-off of being able to "use" Anakin. . . when they all friggin died.