History Headscratchers / StarWars

12th Jan '18 4:58:35 PM Ansongc2000
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I'd like to refine the question I originally posted (And there have been many writers and [[DependingOnTheWriter many different interpretations,]] so it might be best to stick to canon or at least closely too it): Exactly what happens when someone "turns to the dark side?" The dark side is a physical, demonstrable thing/phenomenon in the Star Wars universe, that much is clear. It's also directly linked to force sensitives (no non-force sensitive, no matter how terrible, has every been described as having fallen to the Dark Side) feeling anger, hate, fear, envy, and any other generally "negative" emotions, that much is also clear. But is "falling to the Dark Side" more-or-less a euphemism for becoming a paranoid, hateful, selfish and all-around unpleasant being who draws on their own pools of negative emotions to use dark-side powers, or does a force-sensetive feeling said emotions, or at least using them to fuel dark-side powers, effectively trap them in a self-perpetuating loop, as the dark side itself is a malicious entity that causes or compels them to feel said negative emotions? Canon seems to lean more towards the latter, but that raises all kinds of questions, namely 1. Do dark side users feel said emotions towards everyone or everything (Anakin choking Padme and becoming a child-murdering, innocent planet destroying monster before and after the Vader suit), because if so how can Kylo Ren, Count Dooku or the Revanite Sith listed below still seem to believe that they're doing the right thing when, following the logic, they should be [[OmnicidalManiac OmnicialManiacs]], and 2. If they are compelled to do bad things, can they really be held responsible for their actions, and if yes, and a strong enough conscience can let a dark side user still be moral, why don't the Jedi teachings emphasise responsibility and galactic politics over stifling natural emotions?

to:

* I'd like to refine the question I originally posted (And there have been many writers and [[DependingOnTheWriter many different interpretations,]] so it might be best to stick to canon or at least closely too it): posted. Exactly what happens when someone "turns to the dark side?" The dark side is a physical, demonstrable thing/phenomenon in the Star Wars universe, that much is clear. It's also directly linked to force sensitives (no non-force sensitive, no matter how terrible, has every been described as having fallen to the Dark Side) feeling anger, hate, fear, envy, and any other generally "negative" emotions, that much is also clear. But is "falling to the Dark Side" more-or-less a euphemism for becoming a paranoid, hateful, selfish and all-around unpleasant being who draws on their own pools of negative emotions to use dark-side powers, or does a force-sensetive feeling said emotions, or at least using them to fuel dark-side powers, effectively trap them in a self-perpetuating loop, as the dark side itself is a malicious entity that causes or compels them to feel said negative emotions? Canon seems to lean more towards the latter, but that raises all kinds of questions, namely 1. Do dark side users feel said emotions towards everyone or everything (Anakin choking Padme and becoming a child-murdering, innocent planet destroying monster before and after the Vader suit), everything? because if so how can Kylo Ren, Count Dooku or the Revanite Sith listed below still seem to believe that they're doing the right thing when, following the logic, they should be [[OmnicidalManiac OmnicialManiacs]], Omnicial Maniacs]], and 2. If they are compelled to do bad things, can they really be held responsible for their actions, and if yes, and a strong enough conscience can let a dark side user still be moral, why don't the Jedi teachings emphasise emphasize responsibility and galactic politics over stifling natural emotions?
6th Jan '18 5:23:40 PM Ansongc2000
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder:Selfish, Stupid, or Evil]]

* Can a Sith or anyone else who had fully embraced the dark side still do good things out of altruism (or at least trick themselves into thinking they are), or does the Dark Side kill all their morality and attachments, so they only act selfishly, or does it simply compel someone to uphold the universal standard of evil? I can ignore Palpatine in this case, because it's generally accepted he was a biological psychopath as well as gifted with the Force, but Darth Vader is probably the most confusing case. He claims he's just doing what needs to be done to keep the peace, yet he does things that blatantly go against his morality like child-murder, genocide, and slavery (which the Clone Wars established was his {{Berserk Button}}), and don't benefit him directly. And it was show any feeling of compassion or conscience (like not wanting to see his son tortured) is enough to make him sacrifice himself to fight the Empire. Same goes for Dooku and Jacen Solo, who were alienated from their Jedi orders for matters of personal morality, but became {{Obviously Evil}} almost immediately afterwards with no remorse.
** The Dark Side is, to quote Yoda, "quicker, easier, more seductive", which sort of explains how Anakin went from well-meaning but flawed individual to child mass-murderer so soon. As for slavery, when did Darth Vader ever do that?
*** Slavery on certain species, most famously Wookies, Geonosians, Gungans and Mon Calimari was widely practiced by the Empire, and Vader was often called to act as its enforcer. And saying that it acts quickly doesn't answer the question of what the Dark Side actually does to someone.

to:

[[folder:Selfish, Stupid, [[folder: What happens when someone turns to the darkside?]]

* I'd like to refine the question I originally posted (And there have been many writers and [[DependingOnTheWriter many different interpretations,]] so it might be best to stick to canon
or Evil]]

* Can
at least closely too it): Exactly what happens when someone "turns to the dark side?" The dark side is a Sith or anyone else physical, demonstrable thing/phenomenon in the Star Wars universe, that much is clear. It's also directly linked to force sensitives (no non-force sensitive, no matter how terrible, has every been described as having fallen to the Dark Side) feeling anger, hate, fear, envy, and any other generally "negative" emotions, that much is also clear. But is "falling to the Dark Side" more-or-less a euphemism for becoming a paranoid, hateful, selfish and all-around unpleasant being who had fully embraced draws on their own pools of negative emotions to use dark-side powers, or does a force-sensetive feeling said emotions, or at least using them to fuel dark-side powers, effectively trap them in a self-perpetuating loop, as the dark side still do good things out of altruism (or at least trick themselves into thinking they are), itself is a malicious entity that causes or does compels them to feel said negative emotions? Canon seems to lean more towards the Dark Side kill latter, but that raises all their morality kinds of questions, namely 1. Do dark side users feel said emotions towards everyone or everything (Anakin choking Padme and attachments, so they only act selfishly, or does it simply compel someone to uphold becoming a child-murdering, innocent planet destroying monster before and after the universal standard of evil? I can ignore Palpatine in this case, Vader suit), because it's generally accepted he was a biological psychopath as well as gifted with if so how can Kylo Ren, Count Dooku or the Force, but Darth Vader is probably the most confusing case. He claims he's just Revanite Sith listed below still seem to believe that they're doing what needs to be done to keep the peace, yet he does things that blatantly go against his morality like child-murder, genocide, right thing when, following the logic, they should be [[OmnicidalManiac OmnicialManiacs]], and slavery (which the Clone Wars established was his {{Berserk Button}}), 2. If they are compelled to do bad things, can they really be held responsible for their actions, and if yes, and a strong enough conscience can let a dark side user still be moral, why don't benefit him directly. And it was show any feeling of compassion or conscience (like not wanting to see his son tortured) is enough to make him sacrifice himself to fight the Empire. Same goes for Dooku and Jacen Solo, who were alienated from their Jedi orders for matters of personal morality, but became {{Obviously Evil}} almost immediately afterwards with no remorse.
** The Dark Side is, to quote Yoda, "quicker, easier, more seductive", which sort of explains how Anakin went from well-meaning but flawed individual to child mass-murderer so soon. As for slavery, when did Darth Vader ever do that?
*** Slavery on certain species, most famously Wookies, Geonosians, Gungans
teachings emphasise responsibility and Mon Calimari was widely practiced by the Empire, and Vader was often called to act as its enforcer. And saying that it acts quickly doesn't answer the question of what the Dark Side actually does to someone.
galactic politics over stifling natural emotions?
1st Jan '18 10:16:07 AM pwiegle
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** Exactly. It's just a Space Opera rendition of: "Once upon a time, in a faraway land..." And ''Return of the Jedi'' ends with "...and they all lived happily ever after." (Except that the sequels say they didn't.)

to:

*** Exactly. It's just a Space Opera rendition of: "Once upon a time, in a faraway land..." And ''Return of the Jedi'' ends with the unspoken but heavily implied: "...and they all lived happily ever after." (Except that the sequels say they didn't.)
1st Jan '18 10:12:43 AM pwiegle
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Exactly. It's just a Space Opera rendition of: "Once upon a time, in a faraway land..." And ''Return of the Jedi'' ends with "...and they all lived happily ever after." (Except that the sequels say they didn't.)
29th Dec '17 9:14:46 AM tafelshrew
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Not all Sith are CardCarryingVillians or totally self-centered psychopaths like Palpatine. Many genuinely believe in a better galaxy that must be ruled by the strongest, and see the Rule Of Two, and by extension being eventually killed by their apprentice, as neccesary for the Sith Order's survival and evolution. In fact, in Legends, Plagueis and Palpatine both did exactly what you suggested by attempting to change the rules in some way, Plagueis by planning to rule the galaxy with Palpatine as his equal, Palpatine by instituting the Rule Of One, where he'd live forever and everyone would follow him.

to:

* Not all Sith are CardCarryingVillians CardCarryingVillains or totally self-centered psychopaths like Palpatine. Many genuinely believe in a better galaxy that must be ruled by the strongest, and see the Rule Of Two, and by extension being eventually killed by their apprentice, as neccesary for the Sith Order's survival and evolution. In fact, in Legends, Plagueis and Palpatine both did exactly what you suggested by attempting to change the rules in some way, Plagueis by planning to rule the galaxy with Palpatine as his equal, Palpatine by instituting the Rule Of One, where he'd live forever and everyone would follow him.


Added DiffLines:


* As I understand it, Darth Bane didn't want the Sith to expand too much; part of the reason for keeping the number of Sith down was so they could lull the Jedi into a false sense of security and sneak under their defences. They were never entirely reliant on the Jedi for recruitment - sure, it was useful when someone like Dooku, who had already gained great mastery of the Force, switched teams and didn't need too much training, but the Jedi didn't kidnap every Force-sensitive child in the galaxy; sometimes the Sith would have found them first. There are a lot of flaws in the Rule of Two, though, and my personal theory is that it's the same kind of weakness that afflicted the Jedi with their fear of attachments and feeling emotion - they just got bogged down in tradition. The Sith Code is about breaking chains and surpassing limitations: if a Sith Lord noticed these flaws in the Rule, Sith philosophy demands that s/he should have changed it or secretly broken it like Plagueis and Palpatine did. The Sith Lords who kept the Rule either had reason to believe it was worth the dangers (maybe they had visions of Palpatine's eventual success?) or didn't notice the problems.
27th Dec '17 9:41:29 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Note that, in an ExactWords sense, Obi-Wan ''isn't lying'' when he says that Luke's father wanted his child to have his light saber. It's just that, specifically, Luke's father wanted his child to ''have survived'', and to have taken up his light saber ''as a Sith'', just as he'd wanted Padme to have lived and ruled the galaxy with him. Indeed, that's '''exactly''' what Vader'd wished, however vainly, more than anything else in the world: to have his wife and child/apprentice join him in his dark reign.

to:

** Note that, in an ExactWords sense, Obi-Wan ''isn't lying'' when he says that Luke's father wanted his child to have his light saber. It's just that, specifically, Luke's father wanted his child to ''have survived'', and to have taken up his light saber ''as a Sith'', just as he'd wanted Padme to have lived and ruled the galaxy with him. Indeed, that's '''exactly''' what Vader'd wished, however vainly, more than anything else in the world: to have his wife and child/apprentice child/apprentice/heir join him in his dark reign.
27th Dec '17 9:40:38 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** Note that, in an ExactWords sense, Obi-Wan ''isn't lying'' when he says that Luke's father wanted his child to have his light saber. It's just that, specifically, Luke's father wanted his child to ''have survived'', and to have taken up his light saber ''as a Sith'', just as he'd wanted Padme to have lived and ruled the galaxy with him. Indeed, that's '''exactly''' what Vader'd wished, however vainly, more than anything else in the world.

to:

** Note that, in an ExactWords sense, Obi-Wan ''isn't lying'' when he says that Luke's father wanted his child to have his light saber. It's just that, specifically, Luke's father wanted his child to ''have survived'', and to have taken up his light saber ''as a Sith'', just as he'd wanted Padme to have lived and ruled the galaxy with him. Indeed, that's '''exactly''' what Vader'd wished, however vainly, more than anything else in the world. world: to have his wife and child/apprentice join him in his dark reign.
27th Dec '17 9:35:10 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** Note that, in an ExactWords sense, Obi-Wan ''isn't lying'' when he says that Luke's father wanted his child to have his light saber. It's just that, specifically, Luke's father wanted his child to ''have survived'', and to have taken up his light saber ''as a Sith'', just as he'd wanted Padme to have lived and ruled the galaxy with him. Indeed, that's '''exactly''' what Vader'd wished, however vainly, more than anything else in the world.
27th Dec '17 9:20:49 AM Sharlee
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Fourth, keeping the twins apart and ignorant of one another's existence was a safety precaution: if Vader found out about either one of his offspring, he'd still be left ignorant of the other, even if the twin he'd discovered was mind-probed or Turned. Which, indeed, is exactly how Vader ''did'' learn about his daughter.
21st Dec '17 3:55:09 AM Nakuyabi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


In view of this flaw in the logic of the Rule of Two, no wonder Plagueis and Palpatine each seem to have been seeking a means of achieving immortality. Basically, there's no way for the Sith to expand their ranks. They're necessarily parasites for having to recruit from the Jedi, making them dependent on their enemies just to subsist.

to:

In view of this flaw in the logic of the Rule of Two, no wonder Plagueis and Palpatine each seem to have been seeking a means of achieving immortality. immortality so that they could rule forever. Basically, there's no way for the Sith to expand their ranks. They're ranks: they're necessarily parasites for having to recruit from the Jedi, making them dependent on their enemies just to subsist.subsist, and there's no retirement plan and no second chances for the Rule of Two's losers. Sure, if the Sith lines of succession all die, a fallen Jedi may eventually come along and revive their order by training himself in their ways from their books or other historical records, but he'll be mostly starting from scratch and therefore the weakest in a new Sith line of succession already considerably weaker than the now-extinct lines of succession that preceded it.\\
\\
Meanwhile, with the Jedi always expanding their ranks, even a Sith lord who's attained truly impressive amounts of power will inevitably have to face superior numbers of enemies sooner or later. But for a twist of fate, Mace Windu and company could well have snuffed out Palpatine and held on to power for another millennium or more before another Sith so powerful as he was ever arose to challenge the Jedi again. Long story short: isn't Darth Bane's Rule of Two actually rather ill-conceived and self-refuting? Shouldn't the Sith have come up with a more [[PragmaticVillainy pragmatic]] and effective method of succession by now?
This list shows the last 10 events of 536. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.StarWars