Lit SOS: Save Our Skywalker, Luke Skywalker (v3)

Charlemagne19

I sent you the Luke-Starkiller thing through conversation so as not to derail this thread off Luke again, plus it's not really Literature forum material for a separate thread.

I suppose it's possible to do a Luke standalone set between the OT and ST with a recast Luke.

 

The one set in the era where multiple Luke decoys were running around in an elaborate scheme to distract Vader, which is why Luke is on almost every planet in the galaxy? Better known as the time period between Yavin and Hoth? I kid, I kid.

Books set before RotJ should be fine, everything set post-RotJ is possibly in trouble. Aside from Crucible I can't really think of any other upcoming Legacy-era major novels. There was Sword of the Jedi, but we've barely heard anything about it in months, so people are starting to get worried. Although Golden was the author, so despite how nice it would be to finally have Jaina as the lead character of her own trilogy, I won't mourn it too much either.

I think balance is best summed up as normal life, where there's a stable galactic government and no major wars. The Jedi serve the Force and try to maintain the status quo and usually intervene as a last resort, and usually just help keep things stable as watchmen or negotiators. Sith basically try to rule the galaxy. In the prequel era especially, despite there only being two (well, and a few secret backup apprentices/assassins as none of them really trusted the other), they were on the rise. As the Plagueis novel noted, a few centuries before the prequels a Sith had caused a major... vergence or shift in the balance of the Force, towards the dark. Light and dark, its probably best to just simplify as no Force choking, lightning or too much brainwashing (outside of mind tricks) as staying away from the dark.

Which is why Palpatine dying at Endor should be the major shift back to the light side or at least a normal galaxy. Sure, there's Dark Empire, but the loss at Endor shifted the momentum away from the Empire, making it Luke and the Jedi's victory.

Another reason I hate the idea of Abeloth, the whole Chosen One prophecy is already supposed to be a big deal in the Jedi vs. Sith dynamic, there are some interesting theories comparing the Chosen One to the Sith'ari even (the ultimate Sith or something, but then Sith are an egotistical lot so a lot of them claim to be the best ever), and then the novels come up with Abeloth as a sign of the end times. If Luke got to defeat her too, sure, but he couldn't even do it on his own (and the Jedi Council is busy off-screen as usual and Jaina is stuck having another inconclusive fight with Ship, if I remember right), and Abeloth is still out there.

I would like it if Luke could rehabilitate the Tribe Sith, but he would have to start somewhere... and he basically has no leads on them. He was closest to Vestara really, and she had some redeeming qualities originally, she was in love with Ben, and she still chose to live by Sith rules rather than bother following Jedi rules. It would be great if Luke could convince the Tribe to stand down at least, but they're not that reasonable. We already had a sort of bright Sith thing too, with the Jensaarai, although they were more misguided and misinformed than anything else, whereas the Tribe, despite their minor league, had all the cruelty of the bigger Empires, just not as much ambition, intelligence or power. They didn't have the resources to be truly dangerous until recently, and they still haven't really been stopped. Heck, Luke still doesn't know where their homeplanet is! If Crucible had ended with Luke deciding to look for Kesh, ok, heck, if during FotJ's odyssey period, when Luke and Ben were traveling around visiting Force sects they had ended up at Kesh sooner or later, that would have been interesting, but of course, the novels couldn't bother to finish up that plot.

I mostly hate TFU, it stinks of the worst of typical Lucas and video game ideas, the only good thing the first game did was kill off Starkiller, as really, Starkiller makes Luke look redundant. I already dislike how much was retconned into being due mainly to Starkiller's efforts, marginalizing the rest of the Rebellion founders. Its sort of endemic of a lot of EU fiction these days that unless you're a Jedi, no protagonist outside of Han Solo can really accomplish much. FotJ had plenty of this flawed idea, and it pops up in other eras too such as the prequels, but at least there it ties into the isolation of the Jedi Order as much as Palpatine's plans.

What I mean is that in the OT, it wasn't Luke alone that did every single thing. Its not like Luke destroyed the shield generator, fired the torpedoes that blew up the second Death Star and redeemed his father. One of the things I liked about the Rebellion and that the RotS novelization hinted at is that Senators loyal to the ideals of the Republic, no matter how dangerous it was, risked everything by starting the Rebellion. Then TFU turns it into a botched plan of Palpatine's. Kota being part of the Rebellion doesn't sit well with me either, making Obi-wan kind of redundant too, but at least Kota wasn't in great shape either. Then TFU 2 makes it look like that even after Starkiller did all the hard work of starting the Rebellion, they can't get anything done until his clone comes along to help them.

Sure, Luke fired the shots that destroyed the first Death Star, but its not like he just flew up there by himself with Force levitation and then hurled the torpedoes in by hand. These days that seem to be what stories expect the Jedi to do, with the "muggles" mainly being present in the form of incompetent politicians (as demonstrated by FotJ of course).

The original Starkiller is interesting in terms of how it reflects Vader's wish for a... son, comrade, successor, family, but Starkiller still isn't the real thing. It could range from Vader just using Starkiller as a tool to possibly overthrow Palpatine (Palpatine says he was aware of it the entire time, but its debatable where Vader really was just part of the whole scheme or whether it was a legitimate plot against Palpatine that just didn't pan out and Palpatine would of course be aware of that too, but that's just typical Sith treachery). Luke's unique relationship with Vader gave him the edge to redeem Vader, but in terms of leading the Rebellion, it still feels like it overshadows Luke if the Rebel Alliance started when this super-powered Force user gathered them and made a declaration, whereas Luke can just summon his lightsaber to his hand by RotJ. Which is why I don't mind TFU's endings, since in one Starkiller is dead, and the other, Palpatine shows who is the boss, but then they just had to go make TFU2 and then just decide to leave it on a cliffhanger. Though many game companies seem to love milking consumers for all their worth these days with DLC and incomplete endings on the actual game disc. 1313 at least was a shift away from more Starkiller kills everyone in the GFFA, but that was canned along with Lucasarts.

Luke did save the galaxy at Endor, just wish people in-universe would be more appreciative of that fact. I have a hard time rooting for anyone in the novels anymore. At least the Legacy comics gave us a good government (even if it was in exile).

 

I'm sorry, Nobody145 but I think that's TERRIBLE.

Basically, your post strikes me as really diminishing Luke Skywalker more than anything his various clones and counterparts could ever do. I know this is SOS but I can't imagine we've sunk so low that we're actively worried about other Expanded Universe characters stealing his thunder. Your post actually makes me think of all those people who would never-ever watch Star Trek: The Next Generation because it wasn't Captain Kirk.

Luke Skywalker's accomplishments stand on their own. Not only in the movies themselves, where he destroyed the Death Star, redeemed Darth Vader, formed Rogue Squadron, lead the Battle of Hoth's counterattack, and rescued Princess Leia but also in the novels. I mean, you're acting like Luke Skywalker hasn't been the star of something akin to at least 60+ novels. Then we can add defeating Darth Sidious in a lightsaber duel, re-founding the Jedi Order, killing Shimmra, defeating Lumiya twice, banishing Abeloth, successfully landing a Star Destroyer with the Force, and redeeming numerous more Darksiders.

How jaded do we have to be in order to think Luke is that we think people will forget about the guy who founded the franchise? "From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker." I, for one, refuse to believe that loving Starkiller, Kyle Katarn, and Corran Horn renders me somehow less of a Luke fan. Starkiller could have literally HUNDREDS of adventures and his own comic book series lasting 100+ issues and he STILL wouldn't penetrate the public eye as much as the Son of Skywalker. I mean, guys, Luke Skywalker is one of the most recognizable characters in the entirety of FICTION.

No, he's not as recognizable as Sherlock Holmes or Superman but he's just under. Complaining about Starkiller is a bit like saying that people getting on the DC comics forums and saying that the Blue Beetle is undermining Batman because he defeated the Joker in one of his comics. Given Starkiller is a character meant to underline just how important Luke Skywalker IS by showing what would have happened if the latter had gone Dark--this is doubly ironic. There's room for Anakin Skywalker, Luke Skywalker, and Galen Marek in the SAGA. This is like complaining Leia is getting the short end of the stick because of Amidala, Jaina, and Mara.

I think Luke deserves more respect but it has to be tempered with the fact this is like saying Superman needs more respect. Yes, he deserves to be handled better in comics but no one should ever seriously believe he's not the most respected and widely appreciated character in comics. He needs more respected from jaded comic book fans. In the meantime, Luke's fans number in the low billions.

Edit:

On a related note, I think the "character shields" around Darth Vader is something that has its ups and down. No, you don't want Darth Vader to ever be treated as a joke (see the SOD thread) but the fact is that--no matter what--he survives til the Battle of Endor. Starkiller can defeat Anakin all he wants but he never manages to inflict such damage on Vader that the Dark Lord is seriously impeded.

I'm going to make a weird quote but I actually think Vader needs powerful challengers. In my film studies class, they talked about Rashomon. Not the multiple interpretations angle but one of the more interesting parts of the story (for me at least) was that both the Bandit and the Samurai both insisted the other was a great warrior. This, despite the fact that both of them were (in actuality) pretty crap. Why? Because you can't be a great warrior without great opponents.

Darth Vader killing a bunch of minor Jedi Knights doesn't really make him all that cool. Darth Vader killing the Dark Woman after an epic knock-down drag-out brawl, on the other hand, is pretty awesome. It more or less applies the same to Luke Skywalker--he needs great opponents to define himself. For that to make sense, the Star Wars universe should--IMHO--be filled with an infinity of great heroes and villains.

In the case of Starkiller, yes he's a massive hero of the Rebellion and the SAGA. He's destroyed an Imperial Star Destroyer shipyard, defeated Darth Vader twice, helped the Rebellion blow up the Emperor's cloning facility on Kamino, and was a founding member of the Rebellion. For me, this doesn't make Luke less of a hero--it just means that Starkiller is a big one. Just like Kyle Katarn doesn't diminish Luke even though he killed Jerec and six other Dark Jedi.

The comment about Rahm Kota and the Jedi knights (or *A* jedi knight) helping found the rebellion seemed right to me as it established that the Old Republic's guardians were all a part of the Rebellion's founding. I think it makes sense that the Rebels needed the Jedi Knights to provide a "guiding light" to rally around. It's not what we were raised on but I think the early days of the rebellion would be cool to examine with someone like Starkiller to help anchor the narrative. I say that, unasbahedly as a Luke and Galen fan.

Yes, maybe it might have been better for Galen to stay dead but you could say the same for Han Solo in Endor and I disagree with that heartily.

Edit Edit:

One odd thing I am curious about is...why DOESN'T someone do a Luke-centric video game?

 

JediJSolo.... Now that's a name I haven't seen in a long time!

 

Charlemagne19, I acknowledge your points, and I agree with you that Luke is a cultural icon. Just not sure Lucasfilm sees it that way sometimes, since I thought its been occasionally said the six films were the sage of Anakin Skywalker, but this was post-prequels so I don't really care that much.

Although I'm almost pretty cynical and jaded so pardon my rants, they're not that well thought out. And personally I'm a Picard fan more anyway (mainly cause I grew up watching TNG reruns), although I'm somewhat against nuTrek by now, so not sure where counts on the old Kirk vs. Picard debate.

As for why we never get any Luke video games... this is just my own cynical/paranoid interpretation, but I think its because everyone wants to write their own story, and Luke's story is sort of done by the end of RotJ. I'm not discounting the whole of the EU of course, but most stories revolve around character development, falling to the darkside, antagonists, etc. Take Kyle Katarn for instance- his own background, Jedi training, girlfriend, arch villains until he becomes a mature, stable hero. Luke was basically in that state by the end of RotJ, and pre-RotJ, he's still in the learning phases. And after Palpatine, who could come close? The novels dance around the issue, having Luke focusing on rebuilding the Jedi Order or facing other antagonists, but many Bantam books also have a negative reputation for that. More recent books have had to jump through hoops to avoid having Luke solve the crisis by killing the villain. During the Vong War its not such a problem with the whole Vong army and fleet that Luke can't take on by himself, but with Caedus and the Tribe... yeah, it falls apart.

In a positive light, this lack of Luke-centric games means more characters for the EU, such as Kyle Katarn. In a negative light, they sometimes try to outdo Luke, such as Starkiller. I don't mind Revan or Kyle so much, as while powerful, they're in relatively different time periods. During the Dark Times, the Jedi are supposed to be gone, with most either dead or laying low, with Obi-wan and Yoda preparing for Luke's training so he could go up against Darth Vader and the Emperor. I think part of my dislike probably stems from attachment to what is by now an old, outdated no longer canon background- that the Corellian Treaty was organized and signed by Organa, Mothma and Bel Iblis. They still sign it in TFU, but Starkiller does all the heavy lifting, and I also don't like that it turns out to be a Palpatine plot that then blows up in his face. Not to mention trying to execute Bail Organa on a partially complete Death Star and then after he escapes, not doing more about him (such as punishing Alderaan more). Sure, Tarkin is going to destroy Alderaan eventually, but still, the plotholes just turns me off from the whole TFU story. TFU2 is even worse with all the cloning blues and such.

Its probably why I like Dark Empire. Luke is much more powerful, probably fully trained by then, he's facing his ultimate adversary again, yet he's not perfect but he still comes out ok. Instead of the endless stories set between Yavin and Hoth, where Luke is still more farmboy than Jedi. Although that farmboy nature still plays a key role for Luke's entire life, since yeah, against all expectations by Obi-wan, probably Yoda and Palpatine as well (with all his visions and foresight) Luke manages to reach his father and win the day. I know Luke isn't using battle meditation, and neither is Palpatine (I think one of his Grand Admirals was handling that at Endor), but its still an iconic turning point in the galactic struggle. Just wish we could see a better balance of farmboy and Jedi in future stories. Heck, in that light, Starkiller mostly lacks that farmboy earnestness Luke had. Well, he had a childhood before Vader found him, but Luke grew up entirely on the farm, which probably helped his moral development more.

EDIT: I'm not sure I agree with having Jedi involved with the founding of the Rebellion. Probably just too used to the idea of having Obi-wan and Yoda as the last. Bail knew where Obi-wan, which is why he sent Leia there, I just liked the older idea that even without any Jedi on their side, the three Senators did what they had to do. And occasional stories, such as the Empire/Rebellion comic series touched on Luke struggling to live up to the image of a Jedi as the Rebellion's sole Jedi basically. Although other stories have added other hard to swallow ideas (I think Ferus Olin watched over Leia from Alderaan's sister planet or something like that), TFU is just a lot more high profile than that.

If we had seen Vader definitely beat down Starkiller, then it elevates Luke's redemption of Vader, in the sense that no one outside of Palpatine could defeat Vader, not to mention that moment where Luke cut off Vader's arm too. TFU ended with Starkiller's death, but then TFU2 had clone Starkiller capture Vader. Now, if we had seen Vader later easily break out and stomp Starkiller, I wouldn't mind so much. Or as mentioned in another current thread, maybe clone Starkiller could be too busy with Juno to bother doing much with the Rebellion.

We know there were Jedi survivors up around the galaxy somewhere, just having Luke as the last and only Jedi in the Rebellion during the OT is an important idea to me, and Starkiller and Kota seem like useful sources of information at least if they're still alive, rather than Luke having to dig through ruins and crashed starships to find even a few records on Jedi training.

I like the idea of Luke as an icon for Star Wars, just that, well, more focus on Luke would be nice, such as a Luke video game, but we haven't really gotten one of those yet either. And while NJO did in the end do a pretty good job with Luke overall, can't say that about anything post-NJO.

 

I imagine there might be live action films between 6-7 so it's possible there might be a recast for 20 something Luke. Gosling while a good actor strikes me more as a smuggler than farm boy.

 

Charlemagne19, to counter Nobody's well thought thesis I would say Luke after Jedi is ample opportunity to have a video game. The character just got his "license to kill" as Hamill put it, but as we see from the prequels he still has much to learn and refined. I would think a video game with an rpg leveling system would be the obvious route for Luke to develop his abilities as the story progresses. The game also could feature a small story instead of a big scale war, a character focused piece.

 

Yeah.

It's kind of weird because you'd think that something like Jedi Knight would have been perfect for Luke.

Maybe they just didn't want to recast Mark Hamill.

 

The Jedi Knight series would have been the route I would have gone as well, maybe once it's revived they can go a Luke centric narrative. Hopefully they make some good SW games again.

They still have yet to nail it on landing a good voice actor for Luke, Hamill is an obvious choice but they tend to favor Bob Bergen during the early to mid 2000's

 

Bob Bergen did fine in Jedi Outcast so I wouldn't mind him voicing Luke again.

I agree we need a game based around Luke. Really sucks that we've never gotten one. Heck, even Obi-Wan and Anakin both have one.

 

Yes, the Luke Skin for the Force Unleashed was very fun.

Though, admittedly, I had to cut down on Force-Lightning.

 

Bergen's screaming in Outcast was over the top no joke.

Kudos there C19, I did much the same. Telekinesis was my bread and butter

 

Let me rephrase that. We need a good game based around Luke.

 

There's no reason Hamill couldn't do the voice in future games; he does voice-acting too, you know.

Okay, I know we had Star Wars: Obi-Wan, but what was the game centered around Anakin?

Me too. I use that skin at least once per playthrough, I think; though I wish the TFU2 Luke skin didn't have Yoda on his back. I love that lots of TFU2 cutscenes allow you to be seen in whatever skin you're using, except for the "big" cinematics. But I just can't use that skin because Yoda's sittin' on my back! And yes, I always cut down on lightning when playing as Luke too; it just feels too awkward.

 

Oh I know. Anyone who's ever watched Batman the Animated Series should know that. I was just throwing Bob in as an alternate choice if Hamil's not available.

For Anakin I was referring to Star Wars The Clone Wars. That entire Dark Reaper business with Dooku and Ulic.

 

Super Star Wars Trilogy FTW, aside of Apprentice of the Force, some bits of Rogue Squadron 1-3,and a little bit of Battlefront 2 there hasn't been much out there for Luke recently

 

Anakin was the star of the Clone Wars game and Revenge of the Sith.

 

MasterSkywalker86:

I haven't read TFU books or played the games, but from what I've heard about him, I agree that Starkiller seems to diminish Luke's importance just by existing. Luke was supposed to be the LAST of the Jedi and thus, the only one who could face Vader and the Emperor and who could restore the Jedi Order. Now, I've heard that Starkiller not only faces Vader, but actually managed to DEFEAT him TWICE!!!! That's absolutely ridiculous! So how is poor, trained-in-about-three-weeks Luke supposed to compete with a fully trained Jedi who can perform monster feats???? Plus, he seems to have pretty much Skywalker level powers and abilities. Why is Luke even needed? Luke seems to be superfluous. How can anyone say that Starkiller doesn't diminish Luke Skywalker?

Yes, it bothers me too. As you said, that should have been Luke's destiny, and solely Luke's destiny. If they wanted Starkiller to face other villains, fine, but they shouldn't diminish and one-up Luke by having Starkiller not only face Vader, but defeat him TWICE! That makes Luke's duels with Vader seem less amazing and less special.







kataja:

Exactly! But with the existence of Starkiller, one wonders why Obi-wan needed to spend 20 years of his life watching over Luke when another individual extremely powerful in the Force existed?






Jedi Ben:

Right! Luke was the catalyst that set into motion the destruction of the Emperor, and eventually, his Empire. If it hadn't been for Luke going to "save" his father, as he told Leia he was going to try to do, Anakin wouldn't have ended up tossing the Emperor into the reactor. This would NOT have happened without Luke. Luke was essential.







DigitalMessiah:

The change in Vader would NOT have taken place without Luke. The Emperor would not have been killed and Vader would not have been redeemed if Luke had not been there. Luke set everything into motion.

I disagree that Anakin had to become a Sith. It was a very poor choice that Anakin made that nearly meant he would not be the one to bring balance the Force. If not for Luke, Anakin wouldn't have accomplished it. He would have likely remained a Sith, serving Palpatine for the rest of his life.






Jedi Ben:.

I agree with you! I also agree that Anakin becoming a Sith was just him being an idiot. He didn't need to become a Sith to destroy the Sith. Plenty of Jedi have destroyed Sith without becoming Sith themselves!







aleja2:

Well said, Aleja! How anyone could think that Vader would have been redeemed or would have killed the Emperor without Luke's existence, presence, love, and example, I really don't understand. It was obvious that Luke made an impression on Vader/Anakin, and that wouldn't have happened if Luke didn't exist/wasn't there. Luke was necessary to enact the change in Vader which then caused Vader to take action against the Emperor.







DigitalMessiah:

If Luke would have said at the end of Crucible that he was planning to be less active and instead be mostly a guide (as a member of the Jedi Council) and a mentor/teacher, I wouldn't have had a problem with it because Luke would have still been a contributing member of the Jedi Order. I absolutely hate the idea that Luke would completely retire. What in the galaxy will he do with his time??? Ben is pretty much grown up. Mara is gone. He has always been an active person. I can't imagine that he would "enjoy" being a hermit and meditating all day! PLUS, The galaxy is crawling with Sith! WHY would Luke Skywalker retire???







Charlemagne19:

I actually thought early in the series that Luke and the Jedi WOULD redeem some of the Lost Sith and thus, increase the number of Jedi. It certainly seemed as though Vestara was going to be redeemed at one point. I think it's far too late now though. It doesn't seem at all likely that it will happen given the events of Apocalypse.




More another time...

 

I can.

I think you'd enjoy The Force Unleashed novels and I hope you'll read them after you finish Crucible. As for Starkiller, he's not a Jedi Knight, though he tries to be one. Rahm Koto and he have the discussion during the Second Book when Starkiller abandons the Rebellion to save his girlfriend's life.

So he can be a hero but not a Jedi.

In the end, unlike Luke, he is unable to put away his attachments (or make them an asset) to save the galaxy. Instead, Starkiller isn't able to rise to the same level as the Son of Skywalker to put the greater good of the galaxy first. Of course, the reason I like Starkiller is he has a lot of qualities in common WITH Luke.

Here's one of the best scenes of him if you have time to watch it. It's also when he faces Vader for the second time.

 

Luke's importance isn't his ability to defeat Vader -- though that is why the Emperor wants him as a servant, as an upgrade. His importance is that he reawakens Anakin Skywalker. Starkiller couldn't do that.

 

My biggest problem with Starkiller isn't that he takes of doesn't take improtance from Luke - it's his stupid grip of hi lightsabers. One he sadly shares with Ahsoka Tano.

That migth be so in the larger concept of thins. But to me, as readre/watcher and Luke fan, it's not satisfying on an emotional level. It's just too... passive. Like, his biggest importance is that he's his fathers son. I'm choking with excitement here... No, sorry - to me its Lukes choises and actions that must be the key.

 

My biggest problem with Starkiller isn't that he takes of doesn't take improtance from Luke - it's his stupid grip of hi lightsabers. One he sadly shares with Ahsoka Tano.

That migth be so in the larger concept of thins. But to me, as readre/watcher and Luke fan, it's not satisfying on an emotional level. It's just too... passive. Like, his biggest importance is that he's his fathers son. I'm choking with excitement here... No, sorry - to me its Lukes choises and actions that must be the key

 

Sorry if I was too harsh, Nobody145

I think George Lucas was just tooting his own horn. He also said the six movies were the story of R2-D2 and C3PO at one point. I'm inclined to think of the two movie trilogies as completely separate and just having to take place in the same universe with some shared characters. They have their own beginning, middles, and ends.

I will say it's a rather bizarre fact that people seem unwilling to let Luke Skywalker shine. I noticed this first in "The Last Command" where we didn't get to see Luke Skywalker finish off Joruus C'boath or Luuke. Also, Timothy Zahn seemed to think the Force crippled the narrative so much that he had to create force-suppressing lizards to hunt our Jedi down. Admittedly, this just made Luke more awesome when he defeated a whole platoon of Stormtroopers himself but that shouldn't have been necessary.

It became especially egrevious in the battle with Kueller and the complete lack of a lightsaber duel with Hethrir. Neither Dark Jedi, the sorts of villains which you expect our hero to fight, got the death-blow from our hero. Heck, at least Luke fought Lord Nyax. Tahiri killed him, of course. It's the reason the SOS exists, really. I don't mind other heroes every bit as cool as Luke (unlikely as that is) but I hate when he's sidelined as if his story is over.

http://unitedfederationofcharles.blogspot.com/2012/10/why-luke-skywalker-is-still-relevant.html

This, ironically, is why I was okay with Luke murdering Lumiya. Yes, murdering. I had a 10+ year itch waiting for Luke FINALLY being able to finish off the villain.

I think Kyle Katarn gets a lot of slack because he didn't become a Jedi Knight until after "Return of the Jedi" (but his game created an entirely new Jedi Master for him to learn from). Revan, of course, isn't Luke Skywalker but Darth Vader and that's why people love playing him. Starkiller is a direct challenge to Luke in some people's minds but--in fact--I actually think he's a great tribute to him. Like Rookie One, Starkiller is an homage to why Luke Skywalker is so cool. Sadly, too many people think that's bad.

I admit, my biggest concern is Starkiller in the future. I think Starkiller dying in TFU was bad because it cut his story a bit too short. However, Starkiller as part of the Rebellion is a little TOO similar to Luke's journey. It's not that I don't think the Rebellion couldn't hold them both but there's nowhere for his character arc to go except one identical to Luke's own. The characters have differences and these should be played up.

(Of course, I appreciated when TFU had a DLC which showed that, when Luke was sufficently motivated, he was capable of going toe-to-toe with Starkiller completely sans Jedi training)

Well, Luke still won the day as the Grand Admiral who was using Battle Meditation, died during the Death Star's explosion. Fun filled fact: Palpatine dying causing the Rebellion to win the Battle of Endor actually happens in the novelization. It's not an invention of Zahn. There's a magical effect where the "Evil Heart of the Empire" causes everyone at the Battle to suddenly lose the will to fight.

And I agree, I love seeing powerful Luke.

I suspect my West End Games background makes up for this. The Adventure Journals and game sourcebooks listed a number of Failed Jedi Knights, Jedi Apprentices, and Wannabe Jedi in the volumes. One of my favorite was Corwin Shelvay who was a Jedi Padawan whose master was killed during the early part of the Dark Times only to leave him without a master. He proceeded to become a member of the Rebellion and recruited many to the cause.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corwin_Shelvay

Corwin could teach some of the Force Skills he learned to player characters involved with the Rebellion but only the rudiments. Game Note: To be a Jedi Knight, you needed 4d in Control, Sense, and Alter. Corwin only knew 3d in the first two. He didn't even have telekinesis. Luke, notably, had 9ds by the time he fought Vader who had 11ds.

Other Jedi Who Fought In the Rebellion

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Fable_Astin
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tyneir_Renz
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Qu_Rahn

So the addition of Rahm Koto to that list doesn't mean much to me.

Unfortunately, I'm against that because it's basically not really elevating Luke but denigrating Starkiller. The victories that Starkiller has over Vader are hard fought and endorsed by the games themselves. They're also not victories where Darth Vader is killed, which is something I also like. We know that, no matter what, Starkiller doesn't end Vader's evil and I think having Vader curbstomp him is just kind of childish.

Better Vader defeats Starkiller by outsmarting him (which he does several times).

In my mind, I favor Starkiller getting framed and kicked out of the Rebellion. He's got a clone out there and there's also the fact he's a former Jedi killer. I could see why the Rebellion wouldn't go to bat for their erstwhile savior--especially since he lied to them repeateldy during its foundation.

I do want to see Luke and him team up, though.

 

Seems to be the Lightsaber vs. Lightsaber variant of Form V (Djem So), K.

 

Charlemagne19

I would say this is the bread n butter of SOS. Luke being held back from the killing blow or using his full abilities. Of course one could argue that Luke isn't the one to enjoy going on a "killing spree" when the enemy is concerned but he will do what he must. He has defeated many a enemy which at least is something but I understand what you mean that it's odd that the writers keep Luke from killing the enemy when it's a life and death situation. Mara kills both the distracted Luuke clone and distracted Jorus clone. Leia is the one that shoots Kueller. Sedriss gets off by a tree. At least with Sidious Luke directly kills him in DE albeit with the help of Leia and Anakin Solo. But his final death was at the hands of Han and the robo Jedi. I also never got why Zahn had to add Force kryponite to characters who are anything but invulernable.

I Fully agree with this