Saga Anakin should not have been redeemed

The movie made it pretty clear to me that Tarkin was a tier above Vader.

 

The "Vader, release him" and "As you wish" could be taken that way, I suppose.

The idea of Vader being the Emperor's second in command is more of a post-PT thing, it's true.

 

[quote="Garrett Atkins, post: 51367428, member: 1377501]It's what he did to the kids. Also, reread my post. I said it's a lot harder, implying it was hard in the first place for him to be redeemed.[/quote]

Yeah, but you still bought it. That's my point. He is redeemed because he becomes a good man again before he dies. Being forgiven for his crimes and making up for them are different things.

 

Everyone deserves redemption I think. Even the most despicable of people.

 

Which was pretty much implied by the OT. Seriously, Vader was the last of the Jedi and Luke was apparently too old to begin training. What did you think happened to them?

Nuremberg defense doesn't work. If that were the case, Hitler would have been the only one prosecuted. Vader's a leading member of the Imperial regime. Tarkin takes the vast majority of responsibility but Vader doesn't get out of it any more than leading members of the Nazi party could say it was completely Hitler's fault.

 

He helped hunted down and destroyed the Jedi Knights. The Clones could have shot the "younglings" and it would have been a lot better IMO.

He shouldn't take any responsibility for that one atrocity. Several others, perhaps, but saying Vader should be blamed for the destruction of Alderaan is absurd.

 

Not really. If you order your men to shoot people, you are still responsible for their deaths. Especially clones who can't refuse an order. If anything, it just makes you a bigger coward on top of being a child killer.

Sure he can. That's like saying just because a top member of the Nazi party didn't help to conceive of the Holocaust or give out the orders that he doesn't bear any responsibility for it. He does -- he didn't protest it and continued to support the regime.

Even if we give Tarkin 99.999% of the blame and Vader only 0.001%, that's still 10,000 people if we assume 1 billion people on Alderaan. That's not nothing.

Vader wasn't some helpless, conscripted footsoldier. There's no doubt that he was top brass. On the Death Star, the only person who is arguably of higher rank than him is Tarkin himself.

 

1. I never said he had to order them to shoot the younglings down (in fact, he could have been a little reluctant). Sidious could have ordered it.
2. The clones obeying all orders was made up in the PT (clones were too, I know, but I would change that aspect)

I am giving Vader 0% of the blame.

 

1. Sidious did order it. And considering Obi-Wan said he helped hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights, that means he was part of the genocide itself. A lot of the Nazis didn't kill Jewish children themselves you know. That doesn't mean that only those who shot the guns and turned on the gas were responsible.
2. Giving an 18 year old a rifle and ordering him to shoot a child versus shooting the gun yourself doesn't make you less of a child murderer, in my book

Good thing you weren't at Nuremberg then. Considering Hitler killed himself I don't see how anyone would have been held accountable if your standard of morality were applied.

 

Some of the short novel The Rise & Fall of Darth Vader is based on the ANH Radio Play - but I'm not sure if this conversation between Vader & Tarkin was.

The Rise & Fall of Darth Vader
"I think it's time we demonstrated the full power of this station," Tarkin said. Turning to Motti, he commanded, "Set your course for Alderaan."
"With pleasure," Motti replied with an evil smile.
Realizing what Tarkin intended, Vader surveyed the man with new respect. The Dark Lord had done many horrendous and unpardonable things, but it seemed that Tarkin- at least in this situation- was even more diabolically inventive. However, Vader had one problem with Tarkin's scheme. "Alderaan is one of the foremost of the inner systems," Vader said. "The Emperor should be consulted."
"Do not think to challenge me!" Tarkin snapped. "You are not confronting Tagge or Motti now! The Emperor has placed me in charge of this affair with a free hand, and the decision is mine! And you will have your information that much sooner."
Vader had long suspected that Grand Moff Tarkin was insane, but it was not until Tarkin had addressed him just then, without a trace of fear, that Vader was left without a doubt. Vader said "If your plan serves our purpose, it will justify itself."
"The stability of the Empire is at stake," Tarkin said. "A planet is a small price to pay."

 

The weird thing is that the dialogue comes from the Brian Daley Radio Dramatization (1981)....

 

Tarkin shouldn't take all the heat for Alderaan either but most in my experience act like it's solely his doing. I dispute that. I concur with PH that Vader is also somewhat culpable for it as he stood by and did nothing. He didn't even object.

Hence why I stand by my belief all should be redeemable. If Vader, Luke, and Kyp so too Tarkin, Sidious, and Dooku. Everyone.

 

You have things entirely backwards. Lucas created the "PT" - that is, the back-story - as a sort of history that 'informs' the OT (or just Star Wars). He did NOT write the PT or back-story FIRST; he wrote the Star Wars or if you will, the 'front-story', first. As the front story kept changing, it had implications for the back-story. In actuality, he didn't even start writing a formal back-story until after the third draft but before the fourth draft of SW. Despite what some people believe, the story/plot of the 1974 rough/first draft of SW was not the 'back-story' or prequel story to the subsequent/later drafts. The point is, even this early, rudimentary back-story that he wrote was solely meant to support the current work - Star Wars - and wasn't meant to be a movie or set of movie(s) in it's own right.

Excellent argument against Anakin being redeemed at all . Congrats!

 

That was the Radio Play I was thinking of - which that novel drew on heavily.

 

Yes, I know all that. But you're missing the point, however the PT was going to be shaped, the fact is that once it was done, the stuff that happened in there was going to connect directly to the present. How Lucas came up with it is different from when he set down to apply the two trilogies together.

Becoming good means he is redeemed. Making up for his sins are a different matter. Forgiving him is also a different matter. Luke forgave his father for all of his crimes because he loved him unconditionally. Whatever the galaxy thought has no bearing on how he lives and dies.

 

Anakin was capable of committing unforgivable atrocities long before he turned to the dark side and became Vader, the mass murder of Tusken Raiders and the cold blooded murder of an unarmed Dooku (excuse the pun) go completely against the ideals of a Jedi. Arrogant and utterly selfish at every turn after PM, I just never saw the "good man" Ben referred to in the OT.

 

Anakin should have been kept out on the front. Politics and evil Sith Lords corrupt all.

 

I agree with Lord Miggler on his points except the 'unforgivable' usage.

 

Way I see it is that, as Anakin fell to the dark side, he became a slave to it, to Darth Vader. However when he saw his son in pain, he fought against Vadar and became Anakin again.

Anakin didn't kill the younglins, and all the others that was Vader, Vader was never redeemed, Anakin just fought back

 

So.....was that also 'Vader' who killed Dooku in ROTS?

 

Dooku's killing is a really ambiguous moment though -- you have Palpatine (the head of state and the Senate, whom the Jedi have sworn loyalty to) commanding on of his soldiers (because there's no doubt that the Jedi are soldiers, given the designation "General") to execute the head of an opposing faction with which the Republic is at war.

I mean, I'd argue that killing Dooku was probably less morally ambiguous that, say, the killing of Osama bin Laden. And even in bin Laden's case, the question of morality is more directed towards the government and heads of state rather than the individuals (Seal Team Six) who carried out the order.

It's definitely a controversial action, but I'd be hard-pressed to call it "evil" given the circumstances.

 

No it's not. It's cold-blooded murder.

 

Murder's a legal term though. Dooku's death was a killing, but murder would mean it's illegal which I think is super-hazy in this situation. Immoral? Perhaps. But I think the illegality of Anakin's actions would be hard to argue. Even the moral implications -- Dooku not only tried to kill him, but Anakin was on an enemy vessel and had a duty to see Palpatine safely out (which would have been next to impossible to achieve while keeping Dooku contained). Not only that, but Palpatine is also Anakin's head of state.

 

You are welcome to your perception so am I. I don't justify murder. It's wrong.

 

A killing can be wrong and not be murder, though. Murder refers to an illegal/unlawful killing. Heck, that's why we don't refer to those who kill in self-defense or soldiers as murderers -- precisely because, although they have killed, it was not done so illegally. But, yes, you're welcome to your perception. Although whether or not something is murder doesn't wholly encapsulate whether something is moral or immoral, hence why opinions are so varied.