Saga Does Everyone Become A Force Ghost?

Luke is a potential threat, the same as any potential Jedi is a threat to him. That's why the Younglings were killed. That's why the Empire began targeting newborn children and those who weren't identified, but have the potential to be Jedi. Even if one or two might be powerful enough to replace Vader. Palpatine was too paranoid about having his Empire fall apart.

He said that about Maul being replaced by Dooku and only because he had started the plan and didn't want to wait another twenty years. He was disappointed with Vader, but that comes after twenty years of Vader being his Apprentice. He's not disappointed as we see at the end of ROTS, when he smiles at Vader's reaction to Padme's death. After that, Palpatine never moves to replace Vader when there were enough suitable replacement candidates out there.

There is understanding because he let his emotions carry him away after his mother died. It is understandable that someone would take such revenge because of how brutal the crime was against him and his mother. And it in turn sets the stage for how far he will go, when he is not in such a blind rage.

Considering that the Tuskens killed twenty six men who invaded their territory and didn't appear to have learned a thing twenty years later, I don't think they care what Anakin did. They themselves were just as guilty as Anakin was.

 

In A Certain Point of View, a point was made of how the Tuskens bear a grudge against the Larses because of Anakin's actions. Obi-Wan has to put extra effort into protecting the Larses, as a result.

In Legends's Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader, it's stated that the younglings were ordered killed not because of any threat they posed, but to drive a wedge between Anakin and Padme. And there's a reference to the possibility of raising Anakin and Padme's child.


Not for the first time Sidious wondered what might have happened had Anakin not killed Padme on Mustafar. For all she loved him, she never would have forgiven Anakin's action at the Jedi Temple. In fact, that was one of the reasons Sidious had sent him there. Clone troopers could have dealt with the instructors and younglings, but Anakin's presence was essential in order to cement his allegiance to the Sith, and, more importantly, to seal Padme's fate. Even if she had survived Mustafar, their love would have died - Padme might even have lost the will to live - and their child would have become Sidious's and Vader's to raise.


In the context of the newcanon, something similar may apply.

 

Maybe, but Lucas indicated that the Jedi Temple deaths were to prevent potential Jedi from coming after him.

 

There were certainly adults in the Temple to get killed as well. Even Masters.

And we know from the newcanon Darth Vader comics that the Emperor did accept fallen Jedi into his service. They became the first Inquisitors.

 

The children weren't guilty of anything, and he slaughtered them nonetheless, unless you're arguing that baby somehow aided in the torture of Anakin's mother?

 

Guilty of future crimes. These children will one day kidnap and torture someone else. Just as their parents did the same thing themselves and their parents before them.

True. But most were killed. Hence Obi-wan saying that not even the Younglings were spared. Only those who fell were drafted, with only a few more becoming Stormtroopers.

 

Plenty of room for them not to do so - given that their parents are now gone. That is, if Anakin puts some effort into handling them - bringing them back with him to the Lars farm, then setting off for Coruscant and the nearest orphanage.

Punishing people for what they might do in future, if they're allowed to grow up raised by raiders - is inherently unjust. And as we all know, the Jedi are the guardians of peace and justice.

Given that we've had this debate before - shouldn't we take it to the original thread?

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/defending-anakin-and-the-tusken.50022232/

 

You must be joking...guilty of future crimes? So, we should send our assassins to go to Syria to kill children of parents who are part of Islamic State, you know, because of future crimes. You would be oke with that? What a twisted and morally abhorent philosophy.

I guess the Tusken children are just part of a vile inferior race, that deserve to be exterminated.

 

Given how enthusiastically the Tuskens were defended here:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/defending-anakin-and-the-tusken.50022232/page-28

as possible victims of aggression by human settlers, whose behaviour is possibly a reaction to oppression - maybe the "it's not-evil to kill them for their future crimes" is not meant to be serious.

 

That's not my point. My point is that Anakin's view with the Tusken children is the same view that Palpatine and all Sith have with the Jedi. Anakin saw the Tusken children as being guilty by association and in turn, when Palpatine tells him to eliminate everyone in the Temple, Anakin sees them the same way as the Tuskens. Guilty of future crimes. I'm not advocating of killing children. I'm merely pointing out Anakin's justifications for his actions.

True, but then in his mind, the damage may already have been done. And not to mention, there were other Tusken camps on Tatooine. He didn't eliminate the entire species, or whatever the classification is. They're just as likely to continue regardless of Anakin's actions.

 

I hope so...

 

Problem is - he's never seen to try to justify the Tusken slaughter in those terms.

Or the youngling slaughter for that matter. Palpatine's "if they are not stopped, it will be civil war without end" doesn't have to apply to them.

It seems more likely to me that it was the follow up "Only then, will you be strong enough with the dark side of the Force to save Padme" that convinced him - not "fear of what they will do if not killed."

 

Ah, but recall the full conversation.

PALPATINE: "Because the Council did not trust you, my young apprentice, I believe you are the only Jedi with no knowledge of this plot. When the Jedi learn what has transpired here, they will kill us, along with all the Senators."

ANAKIN: "I agree. The Jedi's next move will be against the Senate."

PALPATINE: "Every single Jedi, including your friend Obi-Wan Kenobi, is now an enemy of the Republic. You understand that, don't you?"

ANAKIN: "I understand, Master."

He's already becoming aware that all the Jedi will have to be dealt with. And then there's this...

"He did realize Palpatine was going to kill him (Mace). So up to that point he was trying to do the right thing, but now he's realizing that with Mace dead he’s crossed over the line and he sorta succumbs and says yes, I’ll do anything you ask so you can allow me to keep my wife alive. Then he (Sidious) says ok I’ll do that, but now you have to go and kill all the Jedi. Leave none alive or they will come back and get us - even the kids. You have to get rid of all the Sith because there are two of them."

--George Lucas, ROTS DVD Commentary.

Note that Lucas chose not to show the Sith with children who were being trained to be Sith. He opted to keep it to two and both were adults. Otherwise, he would have to deal with the idea of even the children might have to be eliminated.

Given that the US elected a President who advocated for killing women and children of terrorists to thunderous applause, there probably was some truthfulness in those posts. Or at the very least, they show that it is possible that a more civilized country has it within them for such brutality.

 

Anakin was enraged, he wasn't insane or mentally incompetent. Many if not most murders are perpetrated by people who are enraged. Domestic murders especially. It's not a defence.

What is this, Minority Report? No one's guilty of a crime until they commit that crime. There's no guarantee that the children & that baby we see will kidnap anyone resulting in their death.

You don't know that. It's just your speculation. Anakin may simply have flown into a rage & killed everyone. Later after he'd calmed down he may not agree with your statement here at all. He may find it morally repugnant. He may completely regret killing the children bcs he attributes no responsibility upon them at all, even for possible hypothetical future crimes. You shouldn't speak for the character's thoughts & motivations unless it's been made clear that what you're saying is accurate.

No, only your head-canon on the subject. He may offer no justification at all when it comes to those children.

One minute you're talking about justifications & rationalizations, which aren't evident in the movie, the next you're talking about blind rage. He didn't try to justify anything afterwards, except to say "they're animals". Even that was said in a state of rage & hatred. When he calmed down a bit he admitted that it was wrong. No justifications offered.

As for understanding, I think any decent person would give him some for taking out the armed warriors in the camp. Once that's done & no threat remains, the understanding is over. To then walk around & coldly murder every woman & child doesn't warrant even an ounce of understanding. This was the point. That's why even he makes the distinction between the men & then the women & the children. If Lucas had not included that distinction this wouldn't be seen as the clear step towards evil that it was. Most if not all of us would see his elimination of those armed tribesmen as justified. Executing the kids & babies is unambiguously evil. The fact that you're comparing this to Sidious (who Lucas has likened to The Devil) having the Younglings killed says it all.

Wrong, a baby Luke in the custody of Sidious is not a potential Jedi, he's a future Sith. He's no threat at all, but rather a priceless asset. Unlike child Padawans, who will always remember being Jedi students. Even they could harbor resentment over being converted to the DS. In contrast, a Sith apprentice like Maul is pure from birth. If Sidious was able to get his hands on the baby of the Chosen One, as if he wouldn't consider the potential that represents. It's not like a young Jedi Padawan at the Temple or some random Force sensitive child or baby. It's Anakin's child, & it's a once in lifetime opportunity to mold someone with that much potential from birth. There's nothing else in the Saga to compare that opportunity to. It would be like Palpatine going to Tatooine for some reason a few years prior to TPM & discovering a 2-3 year old Anakin. When he senses his potential would he just kill him? Would he shrug his shoulders & say "I already have an apprentice, so not interested", or is it possible that he'd take him & raise him as the ultimate Sith. To one day replace Maul or even himself? You completely dismissing even the possibility of Sidious taking & corrupting baby Luke is bizarre. I'm not ruling out that he may kill him. I'm saying that killing or training are both plausible outcomes.

 

Depends on the country. It certainly doesn't reduce the act all the way to "justifiable homicide" but in some countries, it can reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.

That's the thing though - it cuts off, so we don't see what happens. We can't presume it was "cold murder" when "berserk rage" is also a possibility.

 

I'm not sure about that. I'd like to see a similar example, which admittedly would be difficult to find. As I've said before, a good analogy for this situation is a young man who finds his mother kidnapped by a biker gang. He finds her, she dies & enraged he kills the armed bikers at the clubhouse. Ok, at this point he'd probably get off considering they posed a danger to him. However then he goes throughout the clubhouse executing all of the women, children & at least one baby. As an act of hate fueled revenge. Unless mental incompetency can be established, he's going down. Can't see how that would be viewed as manslaughter just because he was furious or in a rage. Rage doesn't qualify as "diminished capacity" or any similar definition. I could be wrong though. In any case we know he was enraged & killed them all bcs they were "animals" in his view. He wouldn't want to say that in any court I've heard of.

 

There's most likely a 99% chance that those Tuskens will carry on from their forefathers.

He may indeed flown off the handle, but there is also the internal thought process as well. Why he would keep killing and not just stop. And as noted, he doesn't rush out to kill them. He sat in the hovel for a while, before cutting loose. One can start going over in their head about the whys and hows of what happened, before finally snapping and carrying out an action such as this. As to my, this is why it is speculation.

I never said that he offered one up towards Padme other than he hated them. I'm talking about internally.

That's the thing though, there is a distinction, but there is also the fact that Anakin sees them all as savages and animals, same with Cliegg. People who don't care about human life, other than their own and show no remorse or compassion towards their enemy. So in this gray area, we have Anakin who is wrong, but is also somewhat sympathetic since his mother was brutalized for a month, for no real reason other than she was out picking mushrooms. Much like when we first saw Vader, we saw him as this monster that needed to be killed. Only to learn that he was a man once and a good one, who was manipulated into turning on his friends and family.

The main takeaway is that Obi-wan and Palpatine both knew that the Skywalker twins would be a threat to the latter and thus they were hidden when they were born. Note that the dialogue is specific here. A threat, not an asset. This is why the idea of Palpatine not wanting to turn the children at an early age and kill them exists. It wouldn't have been written in the first place, if it wasn't true. Meaning that Lucas' intention was that the children would be killed, not turned. Ergo, child killing existed way back then. And even further back based on the first draft of ANH, where an eleven year old and a fourteen year old are killed.

 

That's a spurious random statistic. At least in terms of the kidnapping of people. The Tuskens are based on tribal peoples of earth. Qui-Gon calls them "indigenous tribes". There are several allusions in the movies to Native American imagery. If we want to look into this more deeply, all of these references suggest that it's possible that there is more to their aggressive behavior. Comparisons to indigenous people & colonial history here must at least be considered. Which includes displacement by colonists, occupation of important/sacred land, attacks & even killings of them by off-world settlers due to fear & misunderstanding, etc etc. All of that seems more likely as a motivation than the Sandpeople just attacking people "for fun".

Let's not bother trying to guess what they were. We have no idea, & nothing would come close to excusing the women & child executions.

Maybe, or perhaps they were just using angry derogatory terms to describe them after suffering a painful loss. Which often happens when people see those from a rival tribe/nation/race/religion commit an awful crime. Particularly if those other people are considered more "primitive". In Anakin's case I think that's more likely than him literally thinking of them as beasts. He angrily calls them "animals" but then also describes their "men, women & children". Which are completely human terms, as opposed to "males, females & young".

We can't even be sure who that dialogue refers to. The line is: "The Emperor knew as I did that if Anakin were to have any offspring, they would be a threat to him".

Clearly the "to him" could refer to either Palpatine or Vader. Either are just as likely & both make sense. Palpatine could see the kids as a potential threat to him personally, or as a way to undermine his conversion of Anakin. Which eventually is exactly what happens. However, if Palpatine were to get hold of a baby Luke, that threat would be neutralized. Especially if he were able to do so without the knowledge of Vader. Raising Luke in secret as the perfect Sith under a different name. Hell, Palpatine barely takes any convincing to be on board with trying to corrupt an adult Luke. That's despite the fact that he still has Vader as his apprentice & despite the fact that Luke is a grown man who is a sworn enemy of him & just destroyed his Death Star! It's ludicrous to suggest that under no circumstances would Sidious be interested in raising the son of Anakin as a true Sith. You're referring to one line of dialogue from ghost Obi-Wan that was written in 1982, & even that is unclear in its interpretation. In the years since then Lucas has added to the story that the Sith charter includes trying to replace the other partner with a more powerful candidate. That's how they evolve. Also that Palpatine would ideally raise a true Sith from birth. Also that he was disappointed in Vader's lost potential following Mustafar. Finally, if you want to add yet another layer, Lucas himself had hinted that Palpatine may've been involved in Anakin's conception. If that's the case he would prize Anakin's bloodline & the Force potential that his offspring represent. Given all of that wouldn't you say it's possible that Palps might snatch Luke away for his own use if he had the chance?

 

Maybe, maybe not. The Tuskens are virtually unknown and there has been no established reasons for their actions. What is known is that they've been there for a long time, they're considered dangerous and we see that much in the films. Lucas never made an effort to humanize them before AOTC.

Why not? Why not try to understand his thought process? Why not speculate what was going through his head? And no one here, at least, is excusing his killing the children. And as to the women, we don't know if any of them were armed or unarmed as it is never stated. Some of the women might have had weapons on them and tried to defend themselves.

Even humans have it in them to be savages and like an animal. And we don't know the whole history of the Tusken Raiders. Perhaps they've always been this way and overtures of peace and friendship were met with blood and death. Maybe the people who settled there did some grave injustice to them and they've had a long memory since.

To him clearly refers to Palpatine, not Vader. Nor does Palpatine even believe that Vader can be turned away, so he has no reason to believe his offspring could convert him back and even the Jedi don't believe it either. So that's out. And Obi-wan himself is adamant that a Jedi child could be the tipping point, which is why they were hidden. The interpretation was very clear, Luke could destroy them if he becomes a Jedi. That's why he says, "He could destroy us". It is only when Vader decides to play a deadly game of chicken, does he reconsider. It makes no sense otherwise. Lucas was indeed going with the idea of child killing in the OT, as much as you don't like the idea.

 

Exactly, so it's difficult to fully judge their actions. Perhaps they consider themselves at war with the off-world colonists. Perhaps they capture people occupying "their land" & hold them as POW's. Perhaps they never intended for Shmi to die, but their carelessness & lack of knowledge of how human prisoners need to be cared for resulted in her death. Certainly seems odd that they'd bother holding her in a tent, bound with guards standing outside if their plan was for her simply to die.

Bcs we can't draw any definitive conclusions, so it seems futile in terms of this discussion.

Exactly, we just don't know. So the execution of the unarmed women & children is inexcusable.

Sorry but the rules of the English language mean that he could be referring to either. They both would make sense too.

Where is it established that Palps would be so confident of that way back after he was first turned? When Anakin first spoke as suited Vader all he cared about was Padme. You think his baby children would not pose any risk to his Dark Side path back then?

Exactly, so if Palps got hold of a baby Luke that outcome is forever prevented. Not only that, Palps can raise a true Sith with incredible Force potential. I'm sure that now after all of these years & after the PT fleshed out the Sith far more, if we asked Lucas this question he'd say of course it's possible that Sidious would want to corrupt & raise a baby Luke. Particularly after Anakin's injuries & the fact that converting adult Jedi isn't the most preferred Sith option. Why you're not even acknowledging the possibility of this is baffling. Just seems like stubbornness.

 

If it was simply for her to die, she would be dead. She was tortured for a month. Torture is done either for a purpose, or for sadism. Since there was no purpose that necessitated it, the conclusion must be for sadism. As to guards, that's in case she is able to get free and try to escape.

Sure we can.

Again, we don't know if they were all unarmed. Lucas doesn't make the distinction here as he does in ROTS.

Obi-wan is specific about it being Palpatine, not Vader. You're trying to twist it to mean something that it does not.

No Sith has come back. That's why Yoda never tries to turn Dooku back, nor does Obi-wan and Qui-gon with Maul. Yoda even states that the dark side will forever dominate your destiny after it consumes you and that Anakin is gone, only Vader remains. And then we have Palpatine himself tell Luke that Vader can never be turned and Vader himself agrees that it is impossible for him to do so.

And yes, having a child would not pose a risk for him other than the child being raised to become a Jedi and kill the both of them. Having Luke wouldn't turn him back. His ambitions would remain in place. That's why upon learning of Luke, he wants to turn him.

Palpatine doesn't want to raise Luke to be a Sith. He doesn't have the time and patience to do so again. That's why he recruited Dooku and Anakin as he did. Why he doesn't seek out any potential to turn. He prefers to have those already trained be his Apprentice, rather than raising from birth. And given that Obi-wan tells us that they children needed to be hidden because of the threat, the reason is clear.

 

I never said such a person wouldn't deserve punishment. But the judgment of the legal system has nothing to do with the judgment of a power which sits a little bit higher on the totem pole than the local polity, which is what the Star Wars films deal with and which you're not understanding.

 

I don't agree. The judgement of the legal system is supposed to be an earthly representative of that supposed higher form of morality, and the separation between good and evil, if you believe in such a thing. At the same time most atheists would argue morality is a human construct, and so the idea of a higher judgement or morality is just an idealized version of earthy judgement, which doesn't really exist. Either way I would consider any notion of Lucas or someone else having some higher notion of judgement or morality than anybody else a display of arrogance. So, don't confuse disagreement with aspects of Lucas' reasoning with a lack of understanding.

 

The legal system can't determine whether someone is truly repentant, and even if it could determine so, I doubt it would ever let a murderer go free without punishment, even though true repentance would clearly obviate the need for such a thing. So no, I don't agree with you that the legal system's judgment is in any way an earthly representation of divine judgment. It can't be, because it's a creation of humans, and it's primarily designed around the needs of a society, not the needs of an individual.

Lucas's notion of judgment and morality is based on his own interpretations of the divine, particularly from a Buddhist and Protestant mindset. It's not arrogance, it's his opinion.

 

Which is fine, but it is still an opinion, which I can disagree with. You stated I don't understand what Star Wars is dealing with, which seems to me to be an arrogant statement. We can make interpretations of the divine, but we do not know the divine, if there is such a thing. In this case I can get behind the notion of Anakin's redemption in ROTJ, but I cannot agree with Lucas' idea that the Anakin he presented in AOTC and ROTS is good from a divine perspective or otherwise. Therefore I'm critical of the idea, that Anakin in the afterlife returns to his pre-Vader state (just judging from the films, TCW gives a better version of Anakin IMO), as I see that as a form of regression, rather than being representative of the progress that Anakin made in ROTJ, which to me is better represented by the original depiction in of the Force ghost of Anakin in the theatrical versions.

I also don't believe true repentance obviates punishment, quite the opposite. Everything in the universe comes at a price, and the price of repentance are feelings of guilt.