Star Wars: The Force Awakens teaser #2

[gourimoko]

BioWare didn't make KOTOR II, sure, but the game is a direct sequel and has essentially the same gameplay mechanics. It's similar to how Bethesda made Fallout 3 and Obsidian (who made KOTOR II) made New Vegas, but New Vegas is clearly a sequel as well.

Jack, I'm not talking about the gameplay mechanics but the story and beyond that the story that was brought into canon - not the choices you happen to make in your own gameplay.

In canon, Revan has a defined personality and story. What you did in-game has nothing to do with or any effect on the story at all.

Beyond that, the story in KOTOR II was nothing like that of KOTOR I, and introduced a completely different arc.

To call it a direct sequel would be off the mark; it's a completely different story - it just takes place in a similar time period. But the Exile and Revan arcs are separate and distinct.

 

[gourimoko]

To each their own but I dont see anything out their way at least in the movies that is very nuanced. Darth Vader is in service to an Empiror who makes weapon of mass destruction that literally destoys an entire world of people while Ben essentially sacrifices himself so Luke can survive. This isnt exactly subtle attempts at tagging actions as good vs others that are bad

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

Because that's one movie out of six and out of context?

 

[Pioneer10]

Calling the original Star Wars just one movie out of 6 is not a strong argument. It literally introduces the whole universe

But then again we go to Empire and we get Yoda saying this
“If you end your training now — if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did — you will become an agent of evil.”

The rest of the canon may support your thesis but just not seeing the subtlety and nuance with regards to the movies

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[col63onel]

The Dark Side of the Force is about passion, power, and strength; the Light Side of the Force is about tranquility, humility, and patience. None of those virtues are evil.

But why do dark side users so often kill and commit atrocities more so than light side users?

Because light side powers and feats are generally restorative and defensive; dark side powers are generally destructive and offensive. Again, neither of these are necessarily or inherently evil.

War is sometimes a necessity. We just marked the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both massively destructive and offensive acts; but depending upon your point of view they could be considered either good or evil. The truth of the matter may not actually exist - as there may not be a universal truth at all.

You cannot defensively commit mass genocide - but you can allow genocide through inaction.

We saw the Jews nearly wiped out while Western powers failed to act; or the genocides in Africa and Eastern Europe. But I don't think many would consider America evil for not taking offensive action. However, going back to the points made in the Revan arc, the Jedi's refusal to act allowed the preventable deaths "hundreds of billions" of people. Is this evil? To Revan and the Republic it certainly was. But it was entirely within the light side of the Force.

For Revan, going to war, and wielding the Force as an instrument of war was not only for the greater good, but for his own individual moral good and ethical compass. He had the power to prevent innocents from dying, yet it was not his mandate and he was ordered not to do so. He used to the dark side of the Force to save countless lives by destroying the Mandolarians.

But that power, the near-absolute power he used through the Force, ultimately corrupted him; just as the light side of the Force had blinded the Jedi Council of their responsibility to their fellow sentients on numerous occasions.

So yes, Revan became "evil" from a naive point of view. But not because of the dark side of the Force, but instead, because of his inability to control himself. He became corrupted by the power he had, not the tools he used.

So we're using WWII to justify Star Wars canon?

Do we have examples of Jedi purposefully being inactive and allowing atrocities? Anywhere near as many times as Sith blatantly and purposefully committed atrocities? Sometimes the Jedi fail through incompetence, but it's always the Dark Siders committing the atrocity.

If people who wield the Dark side continually commit evil acts and and those who don't wield it don't commit those acts, logic dictates there is something evil in the Dark side. That's not "perception" or an "aspect" its drawing a logical conclusion from a sustained pattern.

This is like saying guns aren't designed to injure because they require a human to pull the trigger.

 

[spydy13]

Weird... There's three suns in that image; wonder if that's supposed to mean something.

My guess is that it's just supposed to reminiscent of the famous scene from Ep IV on Tatooine, which is a nice nostalgia grab for old timers coming back to the series after writing it off due to the disastrous prequels.

There were rumors that Jakku was actually Tatooine, but this seems to disprove that theory.

 

[gourimoko]

My guess is that it's just supposed to reminiscent of the famous scene from Ep IV on Tatooine, which is a nice nostalgia grab for old timers coming back to the series after writing it off due to the disastrous prequels.

There were rumors that Jakku was actually Tatooine, but this seems to disprove that theory.

Tatooine only has two suns IIRC? That's why the third one is weird.

 

[gourimoko]

So we're using WWII to justify Star Wars canon?

We're talking about the nature of good vs. evil, and you mentioned "genocide." How is this not relevant?

Do we have examples of Jedi purposefully being inactive and allowing atrocities?

Yes. Many. They've been mentioned almost a dozen times - I think at this point you're just not familiar with the Revan and Exile arcs and hence the dismissal.

Anywhere near as many times as Sith blatantly and purposefully committed atrocities?

No.. but.. I already explained why this is the case. Just seems like you're ignoring the points I'm making, bro..

Sometimes the Jedi fail through incompetence, but it's always the Dark Siders committing the atrocity.

Again, read above. Read my very last post to you. I already addressed why this is.

If people who wield the Dark side continually commit evil acts and and those who don't wield it don't commit those acts, logic dictates there is something evil in the Dark side.

No it doesn't, and if you like I can explain to you using logic why this is false.

That's not "perception" or an "aspect" its drawing a logical conclusion from a sustained pattern.

No, it's finding causation through correlation which is a mistake.

This is like saying guns aren't designed to injure because they require a human to pull the trigger.

It's more like saying guns don't kill people, people kill people; which, if that's what you mean, is quite apt.

Guns aren't evil. They do not have the capacity to be evil. But again, there is a specific and oft-mentioned moral relativism here that, again, you aren't addressing.

Seems we're going in circles.

I can explain this all concisely if you want; if you're open to discussion? But I'm starting to think that you might not be open to changing your opinion? I'm not really trying to argue; but I wouldn't mind debating the topic - it just seems that's not what we're doing at this point.

Maybe I'm getting the wrong take, but we seem to be covering the same ground over and over again, and frankly this topic isn't really important enough to waste time over if we're just going to end up "agreeing to disagree."

 

[gourimoko]

Calling the original Star Wars just one movie out of 6 is not a strong argument. It literally introduces the whole universe

It's not an argument at all Pioneer, it's a question, with a question mark at the end of it.

I'm literally asking you why do you pick one movie, the first, out of them all and not in the context of this "whole universe?"

But then again we go to Empire and we get Yoda saying this
“If you end your training now — if you choose the quick and easy path as Vader did — you will become an agent of evil.”

Because Yoda believes Vader and the Emperor to be evil; and he's very likely correct. That's not really the point we're discussing though.

The rest of the canon may support your thesis but just not seeing the subtlety and nuance with regards to the movies

There is no moral ambiguity in Ep. IV, at all. If we only look at this film, and only in that context, then I would agree.

Ep V and VI introduce a completely different ethical dilemma. Now, I would also agree that in this context Vader could be considered "evil," and without a doubt you can say this about the Emperor. But it's anything but as clear cut as it is in the first film.

With the prequels, all of that goes out the door. They explain that there is a duality between light and dark, but there is only the one "Living Force," and that your point of view determines which is good or evil. Anakin literally has to say this at the end of the film, very poorly but still, to explain to Obi-Wan (the audience) that he should be a sympathetic character.

So with the prequels, the ambiguity is done away with and we're left with moral relativism.

In the context of the EU, the Jedi/Sith/Dark Jedi are just aspects of different schools. Neither is inherently good or evil. Literally, such ideas are considered "ignorant."

 

[col63onel]

I can explain this all concisely if you want; if you're open to discussion? But I'm starting to think that you might not be open to changing your opinion? I'm not really trying to argue; but I wouldn't mind debating the topic - it just seems that's not what we're doing at this point.

Maybe I'm getting the wrong take, but we seem to be covering the same ground over and over again, and frankly this topic isn't really important enough to waste time over if we're just going to end up "agreeing to disagree."

I'll cede to "agree to disagree", but this bit is a little condescending. I know exactly what you are arguing. I've read many EU books and I've spent hours on Wookiepedia. I don't need it "explained to me" like a little kid.

 

[gourimoko]

I'll cede to "agree to disagree", but this bit is a little condescending. I know exactly what you are arguing. I've read many EU books and I've spent hours on Wookiepedia. I don't need it "explained to me" like a little kid.

If that's how you took it, then I apologize. I tried to word it specifically so that isn't how you would take it.

Honestly, I was doing everything not to sound condescending. I just felt that we're not getting anywhere. My intention was not to be in any way dismissive or insulting as I respect your opinion.

 

[spydy13]

Does this mean that, essentially, it doesn't count in your eyes? The Revan and Exile arcs are by far the most popular EU stories of them all, and both are considered canon.

I mean, you do realize these games are canon, right? Just as the cartoons for kids are canon and the books you can buy at the grocery store are canon too. One isn't more canon than the other. If you reject the Revan/Exile arc then what's the point in discussing the EU? And if we discount the EU, then we should only talk about the movies.

Lastly, it's important to note that Lucas himself worked with the Revan and Bane arcs for the Clone Wars show... I dunno why you'd question the source on this one considering it's from the most well-liked arc.

But if you want yet another example, Qui-Gon Ginn is referenced as a "grey" Jedi more often than not. Of course you might argue that Qui-Gon never used any dark side powers, I'd agree, but the point is that he did use the Force to his own advantage and for his own purposes, against the wisdom of the council. That arrogance and selfishness is what caused Anakin to be trained in the first place. It's the exact same decision point used to create the arcs of Darth Revan and the Exile.

Edit: nevermind, I see you already discussed this upthread. I think you're right that they'll end up taking some of the best parts and scraping the rest, ensuring that everything canonical is to their vision. I can't wait to see what happens when George Lucas dies and they re-do eps 1-3 to make them not suck.

Just a heads up, but Disney reset the canon so nothing outside of Eps 1-6 and The Clone Wars show are canonical anymore. The old EU is now considered a "Legend." Everything moving forward though is canonical, including any movies, games, books, etc. that get released.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I've read many EU books and I've spent hours on Wookiepedia. I don't need it "explained to me" like a little kid.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So we're using WWII to justify Star Wars canon?

Do we have examples of Jedi purposefully being inactive and allowing atrocities? Anywhere near as many times as Sith blatantly and purposefully committed atrocities? Sometimes the Jedi fail through incompetence, but it's always the Dark Siders committing the atrocity.

If people who wield the Dark side continually commit evil acts and and those who don't wield it don't commit those acts, logic dictates there is something evil in the Dark side. That's not "perception" or an "aspect" its drawing a logical conclusion from a sustained pattern.

This is like saying guns aren't designed to injure because they require a human to pull the trigger.

Seems to me that the Dark Side was very much equivalent to the One Ring in terms of good/evil. Whatever your intentions when you start using it, you inevitably will be seduced by it to commit evil.

 

[Pioneer10]

It's not an argument at all Pioneer, it's a question, with a question mark at the end of it.

I'm literally asking you why do you pick one movie, the first, out of them all and not in the context of this "whole universe?"



Because Yoda believes Vader and the Emperor to be evil; and he's very likely correct. That's not really the point we're discussing though.



There is no moral ambiguity in Ep. IV, at all. If we only look at this film, and only in that context, then I would agree.

Ep V and VI introduce a completely different ethical dilemma. Now, I would also agree that in this context Vader could be considered "evil," and without a doubt you can say this about the Emperor. But it's anything but as clear cut as it is in the first film.

With the prequels, all of that goes out the door. They explain that there is a duality between light and dark, but there is only the one "Living Force," and that your point of view determines which is good or evil. Anakin literally has to say this at the end of the film, very poorly but still, to explain to Obi-Wan (the audience) that he should be a sympathetic character.

So with the prequels, the ambiguity is done away with and we're left with moral relativism.

In the context of the EU, the Jedi/Sith/Dark Jedi are just aspects of different schools. Neither is inherently good or evil. Literally, such ideas are considered "ignorant."

Yoda is not only saying that the Emperor and Vader are evil he directly stating that the use of the Dark Side will lead you to become evil. There is no duality here only Pandoras box

Considering that we are seeing an older Yoda which occurs after prequels and we are shown the consequences of the Dark Side its hard to see how he is not right.

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk

 

[spydy13]

And yet the Emperor himself was written in such a way that he absolutely delighted in doing evil things for no other reason than because he was really fucking evil, at least in the prequels.

I don't buy for a minute that the Emperor thinks he's some sort of hero. I think he just doesn't give a fuck that he's evil as shit. He revels in it.

I agree with @gourimoko that it's all about perception. In Hitler's fucked up mind he thought he was the good guy trying to "purify" the master race. From most other people's point of view though he was fucking insane, but that shouldn't ignore that everyone thinks they're the hero of their story.

I also agree with gour that the Force itself isn't good or bad, it's just the way you decide to use it. As far as I understand it, the midiclorians are nanobot-like things that help you wield the force and there aren't good nanobots and bad nanobots, there's just nanobots.

That's not to say that there are not good and bad people that use the Force to do good or bad things. And that's also not to say that a good person that uses the "dark" side of the Force wouldn't eventually "fall" into the way of thinking that comes with using the "dark" side of the force, meaning that they are more prone to destruction/agression.

Another good way of thinking about this would be to say that the Bible, based on the way an individual interprets parts of it, could be used for good or bad. If you're more prone to the angry God of the OT then you'll be less accepting of others and have a more rigid way of thinking. If you're more prone to the nice God of the NT then you'll be more accepting of others and believe that there are more important things that than traditions of the OT (that's an oversimplification of the Bible, but you get the point). You could also a mix of these though and be a very charitable person that helps others, but also hates gays because the OT says you should.

Anyways, that just my two cents on the debate. @col63onel