The Merry Monarch of Darkness
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Heaven forbid heroes try to find ways to make the business less dirty (which Luke did, by the way)...
edited 18th Apr '12 6:15:45 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
Would that it were so simple.
By hypocritically making an exception for his father. That's worse.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:18:08 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
I'm staying out of the more philosophical aspects of this conversation, but hypocritical? How?
It would only be hypocritical if Luke reached the conclusion that even though the good in people should - in a general sense - be supported, an attempt to do so for his father would be useless. Yet does so anyway.
His approach is only hypocritical if someone had your perception that certain people are unworthy of mercy.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:19:56 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
Hey, can't argue with results.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:18:24 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
Would that it were so simple.
How many Imperials have they met. How many have they cut down without any thought to who they were or why they served the Empire? But suddenly, Luke's father happens to be a complete monster and by virtue of having a blood connection, this makes him deserving of a second chance? More importantly, what if he had failed? What if the Emperor had killed him, thereby destroying the Jedi tradition permanently? He didn't think that shit through. Every Plan A should have a Plan B and C accompanying it.
In fact, the entire duel was stupid. By surrendering himself, Luke allowed the duel and confrontation to proceed according to his enemy's terms.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:21:36 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
^ Actually that's a good point, but less an aspect of Luke's morality and more an aspect of heroic fiction in general - you'd be hard pressed to find a series that treats it's Mooks as human beings. For the sake of the story, the mooks are placed on a level lower than the main characters - it's especially egregious in the prequels, where the droids are sentient at at some points actually surrender but are still are cut down for laughs.
So the failure isn't exactly in Luke's philosophy, but in the story itself not extending it to anyone outside the main characters.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:23:05 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
With the exception of perhaps one
, all of Luke's kills were in defense of himself or someone else. Killing Vader while he was lying there helpless would definitely have been a step to The Dark Side.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:23:41 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
^ Another good point, but I think he's talking about Luke's intent to redeem him in the first place.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:24:53 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Would that it were so simple.
Then he should have left him and gone after the Emperor.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
And what if he had done so and turned to the dark side, thereby destroying the Jedi tradition permanently?
Fighting for the sake of one's values even if by doing so you risk failing and losing everything may be risky and even in some situations unwise, but foolish steadfastness in the face of adversity is an extremely human aspect. If anything, it makes Luke more real than if he had merely given up on the ideals and killed everyone just because it was an easier solution.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:27:29 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Would that it were so simple.
So being proactive in fighting oppressors is dark sided. Right...
This is why the Jedi fail more often than they succeed. They can get all the way to the final step, but their enemy Hannibal lectures them into a dichotomous choice between Pure Good and Pure Evil. Why is killing a mass murderer for the sake of the freedom of millions, no billions, the same kind of morality as committing wanton mass murder? That means the Emperor and Vader are morally equivalent to the entire population of the Jedi Temple.
That's why the moral lessons of both trilogies are actually sort of poisonous. They ignore context. They evaluate moral decisions in a vacuum. If you kill someone in cold blood, that's dark side and you're evil. It doesn't matter if the person was defenseless and entirely innocent or whether that person was a war criminal and mass murderer. The morality is equivalent.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:33:12 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
Agreed, it's like Zephyr wants Luke to be Chuck Norris or Richard Rahl.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:28:06 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
Would that it were so simple.
Just some Good Is Not Dumb / Good Is Not Soft / Good Is Not Nice would suffice.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
Luke isn't dumb. He took a big risk, yes, but that's called a character flaw. Heaven forbid a hero have one of those. Suddenly becoming Good Is Not Nice would be major Character Derailment for him.
Let me ask you this: if your father joined up with the evilest man in the world, would you see him as a Complete Monster? And could you kill him?
edited 18th Apr '12 6:33:37 PM by HamburgerTime
The pig of Hufflepuff pulsed like a large bullfrog. Dumbledore smiled at it, and placed his hand on its head: "You are Hagrid now."
Would that it were so simple.
I'd kill him without a second thought and raise my own son to be a better man, as well as strive to be a good father myself.
Blood relations matter very little to me, when compared to actions and consequences. If my father was a mass murderer, and if he spent his time trying to attack me, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him. Thankfully, my father's actual flaws are comparatively much, much smaller potatoes.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:36:27 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
You can say that now, of course, but I have a feeling you'd have a quite different opinion if it actually happened...
This is why the Jedi fail more often than they succeed. They can get all the way to the final step, but their enemy Hannibal lectures them into a dichotomous choice between Pure Good and Pure Evil. Why is killing a mass murderer for the sake of the freedom of millions, no billions, the same kind of morality as committing wanton mass murder?
It's not the action, it's the method. The option you supply and the others you've given on the past few pages: violating the privacy of citizens, by force if necessary, simply for the sake of paranoia and suspicion. Eradicating enemies with greater shows of force not necessarily because it's necessary, but because it's an easier way to cow them into submission? Doing so before any problems arise, just so no problems may in the future.
And to top it off, carrying out the actions with a total, nigh-sociopathic detachment simply because you can justify them with the only conjectural ends and black-and-white absolutes?
That could arguably be given a dark side slant, yes.
Not all of the same action are the same - killing a mass murderer does not make you decent in comparison if you aren't far behind them. The action itself may leads to goodness, but causality and character are far from being the same thing.
edited 18th Apr '12 6:39:38 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
What Zephyr's talking about, particularly the "cow the enemy into submission for fear of excessive force" sounds almost Tarkin-like, really. I'm honestly worried.
Would that it were so simple.
All international relations have a bit of that in it, though. Countries ignore that at their own peril. Governments don't engage each other in the spirit of friendship and trust, they do so in the spirit of self-interest, and part of that is making sure other countries have second thoughts about attacking. Speaking softly and carrying a big stick, as it were. Never behave belligerently, but make it perfectly obvious to all involved that crossing said nation would be a suicidal endeavor.
Tarkin and the Death Star are the wrong way because of how easy it is to abuse. A rogue Moff could take control of it and threaten Coruscant, after all. Conventional fleets are less of a black box and more cost effective, too. Not to mention they can apply variable levels of force. Sometimes "setting one: planet-killer" destroys opportunities. What if the planet has valuable resources, or has a large population ripe for recruiting? You've got to think about the future, after all, and turning a planet into slag might not actually be the pragmatic option. For other planets, it absolutely is. Korriban, for instance, needs to be destroyed.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:10:33 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
You know, Zephyr, and I'm in total Sincerity Mode here, I'm just not sure Star Wars is for you. Might I suggest Doctor Who? The hero of that is rather more proactive; among other things, he wiped out his own people to keep the universe from unraveling. Not hating on Doctor Who, that's just what happens in it.
Would that it were so simple.
I love the Star Wars universe — the setting. Just not the characters and the decisions they make. That's why TESB is the one SW film I have next to no problems with.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
The Merry Monarch of Darkness
Well, if the setting is the only thing you like, you're obviously not enjoying the rest of it, so why do you even bother?
^^^^ Should individuals be expected to act in a way the nation, as a whole is required to act, however? That, I think, is a key difference.
A nation can more easily claim brutal pragmatism, even if that would cause tensions with other such nations, because a nation isn't a person in a strictest sense - it's pretty much duty personified.
In that sense I get what you're saying, but I don't feel a person should necessarily be expected to act the same way, given their own perceptions and outlooks.
Neither should a religious sect, really. Before the war, the Jedi were basically a group of monks who occasionally take it upon themselves to do hero work - even though they ended up that way, they weren't really initially the vanguards of the Republic in the strictest sense. The war forced them to become that way, but given the circumstances I'd give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to keeping their ideals in that sense.
Luke, meanwhile, is essentially an idealist who wants to make the world better, and in that sense he is somewhat naively resolute, but strongly resolute all the same. The Good Guys Win, naturally, but that's the nature of a story, particularly the kind of story Star Wars is.
Plus, that's definitely not to say that such sentiments haven't succeeded over the course of history, they tend to be isolated events over the course of endless wars and conflict, but they're definitely there - human history tends to not be one way or another but many. We're kind of weird that way.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:16:41 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Would that it were so simple.
If I only discussed fiction I liked without criticism, I'd end up discussing nothing at all. I can find problems in any story and I fixate on those. Stories are supposed to be good and make sense. They don't get brownie points for that, just like how you don't congratulate a person for obeying the law.
Also, if the Jedi really want to claim to be a religious sect, they shouldn't have government funding and carry around laser swords doing the Senate's dirty work. They should go up to some monastery and ponder the clouds, or go feed the poor or something.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:21:30 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]")
If necessary, sure. Not wantonly, but war is a Dirty Business.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."