Should Luke have tried once more?

again, if you think a jedi cant ever attack a dark sider or a Sith, please explain how to stop a Sith

if you say they are not allowed to attack because it doesnt "absolutely" serve the light side, then what are they supposed to do?

 

Split for quotes.

*ahem* I looked.

Thank you very much. Is this what you remembered?

Er... He wasn't fatally wounded.

I'm not denying the Force can be used as a tool. But Caedus isn't seeking Force guidance here, which is what I'm talking about.

Which is why Jedi can take sides. I don't see what the contradiction is. The sides aren't necessarily symmetric in terms of their claim to justice.

 

I'm praying you're not saying you support this.

I seem to recall something about Jedi not getting personally involved in small conflicts, e.g. not going where they're not wanted. I could be pulling this out of thin air, though.

But there's always judgment involved...

So what's the difference? And had Mara killed Jacen, would that have been dark? Was it dark for Jacen to kill Mara?

Aggression, but attachment -- now, really? Is attachment a bad thing unless it prevents you from doing your duty? Bad doesn't always mean bad-it's-own-sake-because-it's-evil, you know.

Which is why LotF kind of contradicts itself, no? This has been mentioned many times.

 

i'll ask one last time then give up on another non-answer
what is this one stance that applies to every single situation to ever come up in the galaxy?
if you claim there is one, what is it that will always work?

again
what is your take on it?
are you saying Obi won was wrong to intercede when the Tuskens were going to kill Luke?

the jedi choose which side they feel follows their ideals the best
so of course they follow their interests
they dont sell themselves off to the highest bidder and do whatever they say
i am not sure what your point was besides stating the obvious

remember in the NJO i think, when the jedi didnt feel the government was just
they left
so it is written in the books that they dont always just go along with whoever funds them, that there is some moral judgement involved

what is this one stance that will forever work in every single situation to ever come up?
you are the one claiming there is one stance for the jedi to follow rather than it being case by case
what is this stance?

not sure how Vader was neutral yet Jaina was dark
care to elaborate?

 

Whether or not his greater good rings true to you is irrelevant. It was his prime motivation. I'm not sure whether or not it was you or someone else who listed the greater good as a light side quality, but this shows it isn't. Greater good does not imply light side.

Jaina was far inferior to Jacen. There's a line in Invincible when Luke's power boost faded, she felt incredibly weak and Jacen just started to totally dominate the fight. Then after he gets his arm chopped off, she admits that the fact that he's still fighting was a testimate as to just how much stronger he was in the force.

Then Jacen defeats Jaina with one arm and lets her escape.

Assassination is an aggressive action which is the dark side. Not to mention that she also attacked him when he was unarmed and killed him while he idly stood there with 1 arm, 1 leg and syringes in his face.

I never saw any evidence to Jaina being more powerful than the masters. Zekk's quote seems to imply that she is not.

 

if it is in question or a jedi knight wants some help in the decision, the masters will help then make the decision
if it is how the jedi as a whole are to move forward, the masters decide that

the jedi order is an organization, and sometimes an organization makes decisions on how they as a whole will act
like in the clone wars, the order made the decision to become generals

there is a difference between an individual making a decision and a group making a decision

[/quote]
i would say there is more than one way to go dark
fear is one
Jacen gave into his fear and murdered an innocent Nelani
he wasnt angry
he was afraid

Attachment and aggression can be dark side acts
attachment is fine, as many jedi now have families and are not dark
attachment cant rule all of your decisions as a jedi though, otherwise it can lead to darkness

i think it was shown pretty clearly in the scene where Luke force pinned Jacen to the chair that Luke could have killed him easily
he almost said as much in Invincible when he said that he was the only one who could be guaranteed of beating Caedus

 

then Jaina comes back and defeats Caedus without any power boost from Luke
did you read that part of the book?
she obviously is not inferior considering she beat him

 

A family doesn't necessarily mean attachment though. Yoda clearly viewed the Jedi as essentially his family, but because he lacked attachment we never saw him grapple with the Dark Side as Luke did in the wake of Mara's death.

The more powerful person doesn't always win.

 

but since the person won, they clearly are not inferior despite maybe being less powerful

 

Not necessarily. Skill doesn't always win the day, either.

 

Go ahead, I'll give it a read.

And what's your take on corrupt cops that get good results?

Do you consider an aggressive attack as a dark side action? You'd be going against Yoda if you say no.

My view is this: They have to serve the light side first and foremost. This might include allowing some evil to roam but it is necessary to have it. I view it similar to the way that crime will never end in our society because it would be undesirable to have a mega all powerful government to stop it.

But by fighting dark they becoming dark themselves which makes the point moot.

Not my question to answer. Again, I'm just pointing out the flaws.

Ah, not exactly what I remembered but still applicable seeing as his instincts are the force.

 

i never saw any evidence either
and considering i didnt say she was more powerful than the masters, i am not sure what your point is
potentially though, she has more power, as we are back to the skywalker bloodline stuff (which has never been made 100% clear)

is this the Zekk quote you are refering to?

this seems to be specifically talking about power/skill with a lightsaber

I think we can all agree that there are many other factors that contribute to one's power

 

Actually you are right but it is responsible for him living. "The pain remained, but with it came the strength Caedus needed to remain conscious." And, of course, he needed to be conscious to do his ancient battle meditation to snake through the Bothan fleet.

Jedi can take sides in a war containing no morally wrong parties?

Anyone who wants to win a war would take Jedi support. Granted they don't have any moral objection with the Jedi before hand.

Not in solely serving the light side.

To be fair, aggression is doing things in a dark side manner while attachment leads to the dark side.

I agree.

 

ok fine i see where we are going

my point is it wasnt wrong to send Jaina
there have been many posts saying Luke was wrong to send her because she is an inferior jedi to other masters

my point is that looking back, she completed her mission, so it clearly was not the wrong decision to send her
so saying Luke was wrong to send Jaina instead of a group of masters doesnt seem to make sense to me

 

I'd consider it the light side of the force.

I think it brings up the question as to whether or not the Jedi should just let some things go.

That's why I said to some degree.

Why does it matter what I think? It doesn't really make a difference as long as they pick one.

Well, to give a little hint, one has to do with an unarmed pacifist kid being electrocuted to death. Even then it's still border line neutral/dark side.

 

Jaina defeating Jacen in their final duel had little to do with skill or force power. It was more of the fact that Jacen was very distracted, not to mention, missing an arm.

 

i second that
i would love to read it as well

i hesitate to bring this up, but Luke in the beginning of RotJ was pretty aggressively attacking on Jabba's barge
do you consider his warning enough?
or do you consider Luke at the beginning of RotJ to be dark?

so you dont acknowledge the flaws in your own points, and dont bother to answer questions about them?
so you dont really want to have a conversation about these things?


this is all eerily familiar
like i have been here before
(sad, i shouldnt be allowed on a SW messageboard if i cant accurately quote ESB? )

 

oh ok, so its closer to your view of Jaina's
i can see that view, where killing is always borderline dark

my question to you, in an ideal situation, how could a jedi defeat a sith if redemption is not possible without it being dark? can it ever be light side?

 

Absolutely, there was a debate here a couple days ago about Luke force choking the Gamoreans being a dark side act.

I'm just not interested in writing about fixes to the Jedi order, I'd rather point out the flaws.

 

Oh, I agree with that. Luke was right and at least imo, Jaina was probably the only one with a shot at succeeding other than Luke himself.

 

I think the point is that there's no tier. Jaina might have lost when sparring other masters, but she does have advantages against Caedus that they do not. It stands to reason that then, she might have an easier time/better chance of beating Caedus than they do.

Currently, it seems like Luke is far and away the most powerful of the Jedi, but while the other Masters are presumably stronger than Jaina, that doesn't make them better suited than her for every fighting mission. Likewise, a small, well-placed blow might do more damage than a large, random hit.

I don't suppose there's any way of uploading a PDF somewhere. It's been long enough -- my teacher encouraged me to post it and to add to the Star Wars discussion after I submitted it.

Better for the people than cops that get bad results. What effect does their corruption have?

Hmm... Then is Mace's Vaapad dark side? It's certainly aggressive. Is Djem So inherently dark, or simply more vulnerable to the dark side? I think there may be a meaningful difference here between aggressive action and aggressive intent, but it's of course a very fine line.

There's also the interpretation that what teachers say are general statements, containing exceptions. For example, traffic laws exist in part to reduce accidents, but if you could violate a traffic law without preventing an accident yourself to prevent an accident (e.g. swerving into another, empty lane to avoid a collision -- illegal because you don't have time to signal), your driving teacher would probably say it was a good idea. But your driving teacher would also have said, "Obey traffic laws." Teachers don't generally talk about exceptional cases all that much.

But how do they determine what is serving the light side? Sometimes the Force appears to speak to them, but they need to interpret the Force's message. Should they limit themselves to doing only what the Force asks of them (and wouldn't lift a finger to help a little girl from being killed in front of them if the Force didn't say, "You must save this girl")?

Are you saying, "But if by fighting dark they become dark themselves, which means they aren't suppressing evil"? Because you can fight dark without being dark (by my definition!!! I suspect the same would be true for yours, as well, though).

No one is saying the Jedi have a perfect answer. If anything, no perfect answer exists. So unless the Jedi can be expected to do better, what's the problem?

 

...
...
...

No. Just no.

Clearly the gut and the Force are two separate guides. I'm not claiming that Jacen's act in this case was justified (there's no indication that he was guided by the Force in carrying out the action), but it's not all that ridiculous to instinctively fight for your life even if the Force tells you you really should die. Again, not saying that's what happened, but there's no reason to believe Jacen was guided by the Force. From Betrayal onwards, he was guided primarily by doing what he believed to be right. Not the Force. The Force were a means to an end.

Were the Jedi wrong in the Clone Wars? I'm curious as to what you believe.

That's not to say the Jedi would come down on their side. If Side A fought Side B and called on the Jedi, the Jedi might decide Side A isn't justified. That's not to say they would necessarily fight for Side B, but they certainly wouldn't fight for Side A if they believed A was wrong.

I sense a circular definition somewhere. Define "aggression" without using "dark side," and define "dark side" without using "aggression."

So absolutism, even if it's not for something correct, is always better than a system that tries to correct/improve itself?

In short, to kill in defense of an innocent is neutral rather than dark side. So if Jaina were clearly doing it solely to save the inhabitants of a planet Jacen was about to vaporize, her action would be neutral as well?

Y'know, just say something like "I have a bad feeling about this" and you'll be fine. XD

Destroy, don't create! Sounds good.

 

Exactly.

 

it doesnt fit as well as the other quote would, given what is being posted in this thread

 

I suppose, since one talks about the potential future, and the other talks about something that was just seen.