PT "Obi-Wan Once Thought As You Do ..."

In the context of the duel, it is defensive. They don't seek out Dooku (although they are aware of his presence), they seek the Chancellor and attempt to escape. Dooku arrives, the Jedi are forced to defend themselves and Palpatine.
But the key is the agency - killing in order to remove an obstacle to their mission is different from killing actually becoming the mission. The novelization for ROTS puts this in rather a compelling way, when Palpatine mirrors Anakin's thoughts:


"You've defeated Dooku," Palpatine said. "Capture Grievous and you will have dealt a wound from
which the Separatists may never recover."

Anakin thought blankly : I could do it.
He had dreamed of capturing Grievous ever since Muunilinst—and now the general was close. So close
Anakin could practically smell him... and Anakin had never felt so powerful. The Force was with him
today in ways more potent than he had ever experienced.

"Think of it, Anakin." Palpatine stood close by his shoulder, opposite to Obi-Wan, so close he needed
only to whisper. "You have destroyed their political head. Take their military commander, and you will
have practically won the war. Single-handed. Who else could do that, Anakin? Yoda? Mace Windu? They
couldn't even capture Dooku. Who would have a chance against Grievous, if not Anakin Skywalker? The
Jedi have never faced a crisis like the Clone Wars—but also they have never had a hero like you.

That is to say, Anakin is dreaming up notions of power, revenge, self-idolatry. The act of killing, whether the opponent is helpless or not, is less relevant. It is the intent.
I would argue it wasn't really wrong for Mace to try to kill Palpatine - the problem was the aftereffect. Mace wasn't the right man to lead the republic through a period of transition. Anakin should have been the one to kill Palpatine, and usher in a new (non-Sith) era himself. But the tragedy was that he did not, of course.

 

It isn't a defensive fight. Obi Wan and Anakin board an enemy ship trying to recapture the captured Chancellor.

In the context of Jedi codes, Anakin and Obi Wan should not have been chasing and boarding enemy vessels if the outcome that will likely be provoked by this would be killing of Dooku or Grievous. (should they not surrender) They should have just let go of the Chancellor, as the Jedi code demands. And not been attached to a person. Rather they should have sacrificed the Chancellor for the good of the code, which is for the greater good of the Republic. Is that not so?

 

What is important is what Anakin, Mace, Obi-Wan and Luke think and feel.

It's not about what we as outside observers who have the full context and are removed from the events.

What I also find really odd is the idea that keeps cropping up in various ways that somehow power in the Force is not tied to the physical well being of an individual. That somehow the Force is a separate thing. It's clearly shown over and again that is not the case. Dooku's just had his hands cut-off, Vader has had his limbs cut-off. They simply aren't going to be able to starting using Force pushes, pulls or Dooku's lighting.

Yes. This is exactly what we've been talking about. Killing Dooku isn't the problem. No one questions that it could happen. It's about the way it's done. He was defeated and was now a very low level to no level threat.

The mission was to rescue the Chancellor not kill Dooku. When he shows up and they duel and if they would have struck a killing cut then again no problems for the Jedi way. Obviously he's attacking the Republic and in a pretty direct way so even if they simply board and look for Dooku they might have to kill him but they aren't going to find him, disarm him, have him as a prisoner then execute him without trial.

 

Martoto77

The duel is defensive. The act of stealing aboard Grievous' ship is still partially defensive, because it is a measure to defend against what might happen to the Chancellor should he be abandoned to the CIS. (Though in fact, if we are to be strict with our terms, the whole Battle of Coruscant was the result of an attack by the Separatists, so those who fight with the Republic are fighting a defensive battle on the whole).

The Jedi code is not as arresting as you imply. The Jedi are perfectly in line with the code to rescue the Chancellor. They are rescuing a helpless - and ostensibly good man - from the clutches of evil. Jedi are guardians of civilization, defenders against evil. These are tenets of the code. If they had sacrificed the Chancellor, in the eyes of the Jedi that would have been a victory for the Sith.

With regards to the "greater good of the Republic" - you can dispute whether the Jedi code runs parallel to the Republic's greater good. But in basic terms, sacrificing the leader of the Republic would have led to widespread chaos, divisiveness and weakness in the Republic, irrespective of Palpatine's true nature as a Sith (remember, the Jedi were not privy to that knowledge).

The Jedi were never "attached" to Palpatine, they were, perhaps, attached to the Republic, and Palpatine was the Republic's chief representative. Of course, Anakin changed this when he grew attached to Palpatine's Sith teachings.

What do you mean? The Force is in all things, the living Force. This does not contradict the fact that the Force has a Will and a destiny for all. The Force can give an individual unusual abilities, but certainly not the ability to resist death or maiming in the ways described above.

 

Part of the reason the Jedi have a remit to guard peace and justice in the galaxy is that they are non-aggressors. This is thanks to their code and their culture. And it is for the greater good of the Republic.

If the republic needs one man to be protected at all costs then it's not much of a republic. Not much of a democracy. And the Jedi aren't so very wise if they are as late as the Republic's constituents at realizing this.

 

That is the tragedy of the Jedi. I agree - the Jedi have lost their way in that regard, and there are numerous arguments to use to that conclusion.

Nevertheless, all governments, good and bad, have their figureheads, and the Jedi would be lousy defenders of peace and justice if they expressed no desire to save that figure head, especially when he had been kidnapped by an enemy force that proved its vindictiveness time and again. You don't meet evil with apathy - you may as well abandon civilization altogether.

 

The can express the desire but also fulfill the principles of the democracy. As an example to its constituents. As all republic routinely claim, they are greater than one man.

You don't have to betray yourself in order to show people you are not apathetic.

 

The point being...?

Of course the Republic is greater than one man - but I feel as if we're getting bogged down in interpretation. If we're not careful we get ourselves in a real tangle. The Jedi serve the republic but not if it isn't a democracy, but shouldn't they serve it anyway because the republic is the best chance at peace, but is peace worthwhile if it is undemocratic and is peace or democracy the main aim of the Jedi, or should the Jedi follow the code at all costs if it means giving up on republic, or temporarily giving up on democracy, and what should be the relationship between the Jedi and democracy? ...Unnecessarily technical very quickly.

You argue that the Jedi should have abandoned the Chancellor - as a result they would have been pariah in the eyes of the Republic. They would have been outcast or shunned, the Republic would have collapsed in on itself, and the Sith would still have won, only with greater ease because the Jedi were no longer consolidated in the republic political framework.

This is the Jedi's dilemma - hemmed in, with only one choice of action - the best chance for peace as they see it, according to the code. The alternatives spelled certain doom - certain surrender to evil as far as they knew.

 

The point being it is not a given that the Jedi had no choice but to chase down Greivous and Dooku and recapture the Chancellor.

I'm not saying they should have abandoned the Chancellor. I'm saying that they office of the Chancellor, which represents the Republic, seems destined to put the Jedi code and therefore their remit to be installed and maintained as the security force in jeopardy if the Republic demands or expects a strategy where the person holding the office must be upheld at any cost.

It means that the Jedi are in the wrong business and they are deceiving only themselves. While the Republic is exploiting their powers in order to be un-republican and un-democratic. And that is without Palpatine, clone wars or states of emergency.

It is not enough just to say that Anakin makes an un-Jedi solution in this problem.

 

Vader's goal wasn't to kill him; it was to capture him, which involves at least subduing him; which he was unable to do due to Luke's actions. So the term helpless is still not relevant to that situation.

Words have meanings. When you make up your own meaning for words, you become ridiculous.

Huh? They were saving an "innocent" man from what could have easily been torture and death; as Dooku proved he was capable of doing to captives on Geonosis. Nothing was morally wrong about about the rescue.

 

I didn't say that Luke and Vader didn't have pain receptors. I said that Grievous didn't. The pain receptors in the Skywalker men affected them.

I'm talking about right before he gets up. He's helpless when he is laying there with a Lightsaber blade at his neck. And when he picks up Palpatine, he doens't defend himself against the lightning and he doesn't use the Force to lift him up.

And yet, he was helpless to prevent it, because he left himself vulnerable. If it was an offensive strike, Anakin's head would have come off and not his limbs.

It's one thing to kill Dooku if the battle ended that way. But it didn't. It ended with Dooku losing his hands and being helpless before Anakin, which he even points out that Dooku was helpless and a prisoner. He kills him because he was prompted to by Palpatine to break the Jedi Code and take his revenge for all the trouble that Dooku caused. Which is wrong.

PALPATINE: "You did well, Anakin. He was too dangerous to be kept alive."

ANAKIN: "Yes, but he was an unarmed prisoner. I shouldn't have done that, Chancellor. It's not the Jedi way."

Way to twist everything around!



The point was to rescue the Chancellor. It was not done out of attachment, but an act of compassion. They were not certain Dooku was on the Invisible Hand with Grievous, which is why after taking out the droids in the hangar, they both note that they can sense Dooku is aboard. Thus he would know that they are there and they know that he will be searching for them or waiting for them to rescue Palpatine. When they arrive in Grievous's quarters, they're intending to free Palpatine and leave until Dooku shows himself. They engage Dooku because they know that they cannot leave otherwise. They're going to take him down, but doing so the Jedi way.



Jedi way.



Sith way.



Jedi way.



Sith way.

Lucas never says that the Jedi cannot kill. They just cannot do so by using the dark side, or committing a dark side act.

The point in rescuing the Chancellor, regardless of who it is, is that the Jedi's duty is to protect and help people as much as possible. The same way that Luke leads the rescue mission for Han and Han leads the rescue mission for Rey. It isn't that the Republic couldn't vote for a new Chancellor, but in a time of war, the leadership of the Republic is in a fragile state without an established leader. There would be infighting over who should take command. When Valorum was voted out, it was during a time of peace and stability within the Senate, where an election could take place peacefully. But during a time of crisis, not so much. That's why the Council discussed removing Palpatine and having to take temporary command, as there would be chaos in the Senate.

I didn't change any definition of being unarmed. I made a pun. You do know what a pun is?

 

So you uphold the different meaning of the word and do mental gymnastics over and over to defend you're made up meaning, and then when you run out of arguments it was just a joke?

He was unarmed. He still could have made a disarming maneuver to disarm Luke, or if Luke stuck down at hgim I'm sure he would have rolled out of the way. Or tried to talk his way out of it, maybe tell Luke to destroy the Emperor. He certainly wasn't helpless.

 

It wasn't mental gymnastics to uphold a different meaning and I haven't run out of arguments.

Then why doesn't he do it? If he was truly not helpless, then he shouldn't be laying there at Luke's mercy waiting for him to strike or not. And Luke should just stop being angry and kill him. Why doesn't he?

People can be helpless to defend themselves and not be a total quadriplegic or a child. Your assertion otherwise is faulty and shows ignorance on your part.

 

Okay then stand by it. Don't with one hand say "unarmed" means "has no hand" and on the other hand say "also it was a joke." Either you were making a not-that-clever joke or you're a not-that-clever person.

Because as the character says like 10 seconds later...he's a Jedi.

You're right; they could also be tied up. That's about it. And I would go as far as infant. Even a child has enough wits to defend themself. Read "Lord of the Flies" for more info regarding that.

An adult facing another adult with the disadvantage of being unarmed? Not helpless, in fact there is an entire fighting discipline devoted to that exact situation. Walk into a Krav Maga dojo with a sword or even a gun and see how many "helpless" victims you find.

 

.

 

As Chancellor pointed out, having no weapons doesn’t mean helpless. Ever heard of ‘martial arts’? Hell, there are entire anime/mangas (i.e., the Dragonball franchise) where the characters never fire a single bullet or weild a sword* and are still more than capable of defending themselves.**

*Trunks and Yajirobie notwithstanding with their swords
**And putting aside the fact that most of the characters of Dragonball can shoot ki blasts, they’re still capable of defending themselves without the need for a sword or a gun.

And these are Jedi and Siths we’re talking about. I’m pretty sure they know unarmed combat and can use the Force. Being without their lightsabers is a hinderance but it doesn’t cripple them.

 

This argument is going on and on and not really reaching any conclusions.

The Supreme Chancellor you continually push the line of argument that being unarmed does not equal being helpless. Whether that is true or not depends on the circumstances, as has been said multiple times already.

Look at it from a common sense perspective - when Luke is at the mercy of Vader after the Bespin duel, are we meant to think of him as "not helpless"? Is that really the point that the movie is trying to convey at this moment?
I'd say, no. In fact, I'd say the whole tension and interest of that scene is that we want to know what Vader is going to do to this now helpless opponent.

You can't judge helplessness with some weird retrospective analysis. Helplessness doesn't mean you didn't go on to live, or that you didn't survive in the end. Helpless is a state of being which puts you at the mercy of an enemy, or another's whim etc.
And, yes, I'm sorry, being unarmed in this case does impact Luke's being helpless. It's not the only reason, but it's one of them.

 

A Jedi or Sith is never unarmed, but as far as Luke being helpless against Vader in that scene is correct. Vader is stronger with Force Abilities, a better duelist, Luke's hand is chopped off, Luke lost mentally learning Vader is his father, Luke has no lightsaber, Luke is in a place he can't use his agility and Luke's clearly trying to escape Vader. Luke was helpless in a fight against Vader, but not totally helpless. Luke used the force to escape and fight another day.

 

I disagree somewhat.
I think that what motivated Mace was in part the opposite, that Palpatine was NOT helpless and was in fact too powerful.
That arresting him was not an option.
Sure, the actual reasons he gave made little sense, "He controls the courts." Yeah Mace, you knew that when you went with your three goons to arrest him. It wasn't a factor then, why is it now?

What would make sense is Mace realizing that Palpatine is simply too powerful to be taken into custody. He can not be "disarmed" as he has the Force and is too strong. So killing him is the safer option.

Mace tried to arrest Palpatine but he resisted violently and killed three Jedi in the process.
Mace managed to get rid of his lightsaber and still tried to arrest him but Palpatine kept resisting and tried to kill Mace.
Mace has no solid proof that Palpatine is weak. The only thing he has is Palaptine's words and Mace has little reason to trust anything Palpatine says.

Unlike Dooku, Luke or Anakin, Palpatine had lost no limbs. He only said he was weak.
So Mace could not know for sure that he was as weak as he said he was.

Say some cops goes to arrest a criminal and the criminal draws a gun and shoots some of the cops and there is a fire fight. The criminal looses his gun and says he is unarmed and the remaining cops try to arrest him again.
But he pulls a second gun and kills some more cops but then looses his second gun.
He then says to only remaining cop, "I am unarmed, put down your gun."
Would the cop trust him?
Would it be all that hard to see the cop thinking "He might have another gun and if I lower my guard he'll kill me."

So if Mace had to choose between, lowering his guard and giving Palpatine a chance to kill him or try to end Palpatine. Not an easy choice to make.
How could he make sure that Palpatine would not attack again?
Demand that Palpatine stick out his hands and order Anakin to cut them off?
What if Palpatine refuses?

Bottomline, Mace's actions are questionable sure.
Mostly him not warning his fellow Jedi or making some kind of plan before running of half cocked.
And he could have given better reasons to Anakin.
"Look at him, he had no weapon and he tried to kill me. Do you think there is any prison that can hold him?"

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

I haven't ran from it.

Yet, Jedi are supposed to kill Sith. But a Jedi is not supposed to kill Sith using the dark side. So, stop using the dark side and just kill the bastard. Simple. But it isn't and why is it? Because Jedi aren't supposed to kill someone who is helpless. It isn't just the fact that Luke doesn't want to kill his father that makes him a Jedi. It is showing an act of compassion against an opponent. An opponent who cannot defend himself. Anakin killed a helpless person in Dooku, who doesn't get up and Krav Maga Anakin to death with his stumps, and begins his journey towards the dark side. Luke doesn't kill a helpless person in Vader, who also doesn't Krav Maga Luke to death, and Luke becomes a Jedi. But that will be lost on you and you'll continue to argue that Krav Maga is your god and you are its instrument of its will.

Krav Maga doesn't exist in "Star Wars" and last I checked, you need more than one hand to disarm someone. So again, why doesn't Vader disarm Luke if he isn't helpless? The fact that you won't answer the question and instead move goalposts about using Krav Maga shows you don't have an answer.

Then why doesn't Vader just use the Force on Luke to stop him from trying to kill him? Why doesn't Dooku when Anakin goes to kill him? When Obi-wan is about to be killed by Dooku, why doesn't he just defend himself? Or Vader when he's burning up, why doesn't he just use the Force to levitate his Lightsaber and keep fighting? And last I check, Palpatine didn't break out Krav Maga to defend himself.

 

It's taken a while, but you're slowly beginning to understand. Great!

You're running from it right now by not choosing a stance. Was it a joke or do you literally have your own personal meanings for words?

No, Luke didn't kill Vader because Vader was his father. He showed at Jabba's palace and in the speeder chase where he hunted down and killed men who were running away he had no problem killing enemy combatants, which Vader was. Luke was not a pacifist; he simply felt that his goal of redeeming his father was more important than his own life.

So you admit that an unarmed man isn't helpless?? We're getting somewhere!

 

It was a pun, but it was also something that I used. Unarmed means not having a weapon, but also not having any limbs. I don't know why this bothers you.

Right, but it also has to do with not killing someone the way his father did years ago. That's why Lucas structured both duels the way that he did, to show us where Anakin went wrong and why Luke succeeds.

I never said that Luke was a pacifist. I said that there is a right way and a wrong way to kill an enemy. The wrong way is to kill the enemy who cannot defend himself, who is helpless to stop the killing blow.

Except when they are.




Do you concede that Dooku is helpless in this moment? Where's the Krav Maga to save himself? Or are you just trolling here?

 

I have understood clearly your argument from the beginning. The "slow" part is my willingness to accept it because it is flawed.
darth-sinister has provided examples where this is not the case, as have I - repeatedly. Will you now concede the point? It's not even a case of right vs. wrong - it's just that your definition appears to be too narrow and/or absolute, in such a way which is unpersuasive. Which is what I've been saying for some time now.

Master Endz-One - You cannot have degrees of helplessness. You are either helpless or not. It is qualitative not quantitative. Perhaps what you were intending to say was that Luke was helpless in a specific respect, but not helpless in another.

Luke did not use the Force to escape - the Force worked through him and his destiny allowed him to live on to fight another day. That's the spiritual explanation - the logical reasoning he survived is that Vader didn't kill him or try to stop him when he fell. He was, indeed, totally helpless in that instant.

There is no empirical evidence to suggest the Force would have 'intervened' to stop Luke's death.

 

Because he didn't understand the actual Dark Side power.

There is no way he could have until he experienced it.

Sidious was "helpless" in the context of the scene in terms of what Mace understood from a purely physical standpoint. He already knew of Palpatine's power in the Senate and courts but the point is that he was not going to simply execute him but after feeling the extreme power that cut through 3 Jedi like nothing he realized that he was too powerful on a Force level plus the power of the Chancellor. So he was going to set aside the Jedi way for what was certainly the "right" thing to do for the galaxy but wrong for the Jedi way.

 

The difference in this case was between controlling the courts and being a politician, and controlling the courts and being a megalomaniac Sith lord. The latter was much worse.

You also don't send four elite Jedi council members to discuss an act of politics - Mace confronted Palpatine with the intent almost of an assassin.
I find this aspect of Mace's character rather fascinating - in many ways, it reveals Windu to be very un-Jedi like. Once he knew the danger, he wasn't constrained by the Jedi code, he was exceedingly pragmatic, he realized that he had to take Palpatine out, and fast.