Full Series The Jedi in TCW--Unfavorable portrayal?

I think someone has to be extremely blind not to see how badly Jedi were portrayed in TCW. How do you miss the parts where they catch something funny going on then shrug and figure it's nothing.

 

Eh.

AOTC:

Also the clone donor for the "army for the republic" was in league with the separatists, the sworn enemies of the republic, and has tried to assassinate a senator of the republic.

They were literally told that a Sith Lord was controlling the senate and they still couldn't figure it out in the Prequels.

AOTC deserves to be wiped from continuity in my opinion. There is only so much damage control you can do.

In TCW they at least figure out that the clone army was being put into motion by their enemies. It was just too late to do something about it, which seems to me a saving grace. It makes them appear less oblivious than they were in the Prequels.

I must admit it is confusing to me that people think the Jedi were portrayed as "better" in the prequels when they were far more sympathetic, and tragic, in TCW.

 

You're right - war criminals are executed throughout history, both our own and the GFFA's. The Republic laws even allow for such - which is why I would have no issue if the novel had the Council standing to the side and allowing the Republic to execute a prisoner if the Senate had demanded it. They did the same in the Ahsoka fugitive arc, and I was fine with it (though there were other elements in that arc I was less okay with...) because it remained consistent with the Jedi Order's portrayal up until that point. They are not an independent organisation, but one that has willingly placed themselves as servants of the Republic. Ergo, if the Senate wishes to execute a dangerous criminal through its own legal system, then so be it - it expands an existing theme (which I enjoy) of the Jedi constantly being forced to question if their higher loyalty is to their Code or the Republic, as the Clone Wars prove to pit the two against each other more and more.

I suppose you could say I like the questions that are raised about the Jedi Order's morality and ultimate loyalties throughout the series...I just really don't like the heavy-handed, totally unambiguous and, heck, biased form the answers take.

However, in DD (spoiler tagged once more):

Spoiler

It is made explicit that Vos is considered a 'Jedi affair', and that the Council have final say on his fate. They speak openly how if Vos will die, it will be by a Jedi executioner's blade, not the Republic's equivalent to the electric chair. The legal system the Jedi serve has no say in the matter, so it's not even a matter of the Jedi choosing one loyalty over another. They just straight up ignore their own code.

Although it might make sense in our world or other parts of the GFFA to execute the man (he IS a war criminal, without a doubt) for the Council to so eagerly, so abruptly, and so unquestioningly go to execution as an option is fundamentally contradictory to the internal logic of the Order up until that point. Jedi never consider killing prisoners a first course of action - but they do so here for no more reason than to temporarily heighten the peril to Vos' character. The most irritating part is that there were other options:

Why not have the Senate/military demand the execution? It would be consistent with the likes of Tarkin or Mas Amedda to demand as much, and wouldn't involve breaking the internal logic of the Republic as an entity because we know execution is a viable, legal option for their court system for certain crimes.

Heck, go one further - have Palpatine be the one exerting pressure on the Council to execute Vos. He's the Chancellor, the Council are sworn to serve his office, and we know that as Sidious he highly disapproves of Vos' role as Dooku's acolyte and would be eager to get rid of him. This continues the theme from the Ahsoka fugitive arc wherein the Council is shown to be stretched morally by the contradictions between their own moral code and the demands of the Republic they serve - instead of outright abandoning said moral code for a cheap narrative ploy.

 

Spoiler

I would say that yes, the Jedi have become hardasses throughout the war. They are less willing to forgive and forget than they were before. However, the decision to execute Vos was still a rightful rule by the entire council, because apparently the senate decided to let the Jedi handle the matter (for whatever reason). The Jedi have stopped clinging to the hypocritical notion that they are more pacifist than the Republic itself. They also stop only having the senate make the "dirty decisions". Is it wrong for the Jedi to have changed in this direction? I don't think so. I think they just stopped deluding themselves so much, because they've been killers as far back as AOTC.

Windu in the book is one of the most honest Jedi to me. I can respect that. I respected him more than wishy-washy Obi in the same book, though he was somewhat cute in his naivety.

Isn't this kinda cowardly and convenient? It reeks of weakness and hypocrisy to me. Letting someone be killed isn't much different from killing yourself.

[/spoiler]

It would also be a downright repetition of TCW, so I much prefer DD, since it showcases the change in the order.

 

Hate to picky --actually no I love being picky, but this isn't true.

"Out allegiance is to the Senate, not to its leader" -- Obi-Wan in ROTS

Also the Council wasn't morally stretched in the fugitive arc, since they believed Ahsoka guilty they had no problem handing her over for trial.

 

You know, I'm gonna read some of Traviss's books to see how bad the Jedi are portrayed in them as opposed to TCW.

 

You're correct. I was referring to the Chancellor's Office in its role as the central leadership of the Senate, but semantically I guess you can say I misspoke.

And I don't believe the Council were morally stretched by their belief in Ahsoka's innocence or guilt, but rather by the question of whether or not to hand her over to a court system willing to execute prisoners - which goes against their moral code. Hence the issue of loyalties to the Senate clashing with the Jedi's traditional ethics. That they opted to put their loyalty to the Republic at the expense of their self-professed moral high ground is, in my view, commendable - both to the characters themselves and the story being told.

That this was portrayed in the show as a heavy-handed "betrayal" of our central Togrutan hero, however, is where I find problems with it.

It seems we have a fundamentally different opinion of what place the Jedi Order should be at, morally and thematically, in this time period. I agree that the war forces the Jedi Council to change and often contradict themselves as a result of constant compromise in the name of the greater good (that greater good being the preservation of the Republic, peace and democracy). However I believe DD took this to too much of an extreme too early in the period. And it fails to justify it within its own narrative logic due to it being used as cheap literary ploys to move the plot along.

In my opinion, I much prefer the idea that ROTS is the moral "breaking point" for the Jedi Order. Windu's attempted assassination of Palpatine, the Jedi humouring the idea of a political coup, etc don't feel as drastic or indicative of the Jedi's desperation at that point in the saga if we know they've been planning assasinations of their own accord for the past couple of years.

 

It does seem like Golden tries to play up Ventress compared to the Jedi council. For that she does twist the actions of the Jedi into seemingly being worse than they are. But the acts themselves don't seem anything out of the ordinary.

Ventress herself has done far worse, like kill Nightbrothers in a sadistic tournament, which conveniently doesn't come up.

I'm curious, why do you believe the assassination of Palpatine is the moral breaking point?

I'm guessing you are referring to Anakin's speech:

If you watch the scene, something is off about it. Anakin Skywalker, of all people, goes on a moral tirade? He preaches against killing Sidious despite having killed Dooku just recently? Windu planning to kill a man who is down is very questionable, probably murder, but Anakin's true motive isn't the words he is throwing into Windu's face. His true motive is saving Padmé. The meaning of the scene is imo not to emphasise the corruption of the Jedi, but rather to show Anakin pulling a justification out of his butt. Because he's not Sidious. He needs to justify himself somehow when he does evil things.

I'll give you the coup however, that certainly was a breaking point.

 

Except Palpatine was given the opportunity to surrender – twice – so it cannot be characterized as an assassination but as an arrest.


Mace’s decision to kill Palpatine is completely on par with how it would have happened in our world if an armed, dangerous criminal refuses to come quietly: if the criminal continues to attempt to kill the police (having already killed several) it is accepted that the police use lethal force to protect themselves and others.

 

The thing was though that we often didn't get to explore many Jedi in depth. Given they were nearly all Generals in the Clone Wars, and there are many of them, this was a shame. It would have been brilliant to see more Jedi like Master Di, Master Cin Drallig, Master Shyrne, Master Shaak Ti, Master Chatak, Knights Serro Keto, Aayla Secura and Padawan Starstone, etc explored in more depth and given time to lead stories, armies and develop.

After all, the entire Jedi Order and indeed the war effort is not solely dependent on only 3 Jedi, one of which is a Padawan.

Even the Jedi Council Masters needed to be utilized more. I think there were some great TCW arcs though. A little bit of tweaking and expansion of utilizing the full potential of the Jedi Order and maybe some clone commandos too would make it go from good to epic.

 

But did they expect Tarkin would request a death sentence? Judging by Padmé and Ahsoka's reaction when they hear it, it was apparently a surprise that he request the heaviest punishment.

That is not what happened. Remember the conversation after Tarkin "requested" Ahsoka being handed over (will not be 100% accurate):

Obi-Wan: Surely we can't do what Tarkin suggests. We have to stand strong behind Ahsoka.
Ki-Adi: And yet there's evidence that she is indeed the mastermind behind those attacks.
Saese: She was found in possession of explosive nanodroids. That alone is enough to convict her.
Windu: I understand your sentiment Obi-wan. But if we don't comply, this might be seen as a form of sedition to the Senate.

Ahsoka was already found guilty before Windu chimed in about keeping the Senate happy, this wasn't a moral or ethical dilemma at all.

 

Good points.

 

I don't really think it is. Justifying killing is a very dicey thing.

 

Better than having a Sith Lord rule the galaxy.......

 

The jedi have fallen from the light, TCW is fatalistic because of that, you can't have them win the war as we know they lost and died out or nearly so. Some may of went full dark, as we know some did. So it becomes a matter of how far the mighty have fallen from grace, how the chosen became false.

With DD, its clear - as assassination is premeditated murder, and its often conspired and treacherously designed - as the Jedi Council is doing, having conspiracy to commit and sanction murder. That is the moral and ethical dilemma the Jedi are having and context of the narrative. Jedi are doing things the Sith do, thinking like the Sith and are thus becoming Sith or Sith-like. Anakin murdering Dooku in ROTS, again not the Jedi way, Windu murdering Palpatine, not the Jedi way. The going after Vos to kill him cause he fell to the darkside, again was not the Jedi way. Jedi seem destined eventually fall from grace cause they're a militant as well as religious order. They're justifying killing as would a Holy Order Knight would, despite the fact that killing is against their religion but they think they're doing the right thing and have special permission and special circumstances. Jedi probably for the past 1,000 years have not killed anybody until the Sith started the war and put them to the test and they failed. The Sith Shrine has been corrupting and influencing the actions of the Jedi which further rigged things in favor of the Sith. If some of you are ignoring all this, then no you're not gonna get it.

You can say the Jedi are still the good guys, but their good is just the lesser of two evils, since they're not completely good and their good people doing a lot of bad things or highly questionable things and thus it becomes a point of view. The Sith are evil as they're manifestation of Christian concepts of the devil and demons, who pretend to do good and/or carrying out seemingly good things but as they see fit for self gain. In SW there does not seem to be an all powerful judge and creator, but more a free for all but thats because Lucas made The Force very ambiguous to the audience as well as we're guided by what we're told in the opening scrawls and through the characters and all the characters are mortals and have vices as we all do. Closest entity to a god, was the Force Priestess(es) but this character appears more as a servant of a greater power who is trying to guide and ensure that the Lightside/Goodside triumphs over the badside/darkside. So we know somewhat that The Force in someway is ensuring a goodside ending and out there there is infact an divine or supreme conscious and intelligent design in all this- however at the same time those Force Priestess commune with the Sith and going by Filoni's comments The Priestesses alignment is questionable to some extent or it could that they're servants to the Force and that its just one big eternal struggle and it leaves things up to the mortals under free will to decide the outcome - but it does step in to manipulating things so that its neither too much light nor too much dark but at the same from time to time The Force,in its natural state is benevolent and so tries to set the course or re-set the course towards a canonical lightside ending just like all the games and movies.

Anakin's birth is supposed to be typical of prophetic lore of a power or god creating a god-like savior or an avatar concepts or a merger of various ideas Lucas had in his mind. There could be avatars of both light and dark even, Christ and Anti-Christ. ect.

 

^Dude, there was no way to take Palpy prisoner.

They had planned on going to make sure he gives up his emergency powers before Ani told Mace everything.

 

Don't get JCF started on Traviss.

 

It was an arrest, but the breaking point I was referring to as an assassination is at the end, when Windu has Palpatine subdued. He then makes the conscious decision to kill his defeated opponent - I'm not saying Windu was wrong to feel this way, merely that the potency of that moment is lost if we know that Windu and the Council have already resigned themselves to such conscious contradictions of their code previously. Windu being willing to kill Palpatine is clearly as shocking to Anakin as it is to Palpatine himself - yet should Anakin be that surprised if he's seen the Council do as much before?

"He's too dangerous to be left alive." is a statement I feel that only Palpatine deserves. No other character - not Dooku, not Vos - should strike such fear and desperation in the Jedi, in my view.

Again - I'm not saying that the Jedi were wrong to make the decision. I'm saying that having them engage in such ploys and schemes prior to ROTS detracts from the power and potency of the events in the third prequel. It becomes less a case of "Wow, just look at what the Jedi are considering" and more "Yep, more Council scheming." I also have qualms about the in-story justification for these earlier decisions (particularly Dark Disciple) but I've elaborated on those earlier in the thread.

 

Alright, I haven't seen the relevant TCW episodes (I didn't bother with the bonus content), but I'll chime in with my thoughts. Ignorance is not an obstacle!

I, too, thought AOTC had enough for the Jedi to connect Dooku to the clones through Jango. I thought they came off as pretty dumb to not put that together, or at least be very suspicious of the clones, to the point of not wanting to work with them.

I've heard the arguments against this thought in the PT forum, and I'm not in any way impressed by them. But, in the movies, at least you could say "they didn't know". They probably should have known, or suspected, but canonically, they apparently did not.

Now, if I got this right, apparently they did know....absolutely knew, aaaaaaaannd....did nothing? Just didn't care? Shrugged?

With AOTC, you could say they didn't know, which reduces the stupidity of working with the clones. Now, you can't even say that.

To me, it's not a saving grace, it's even worse. They have no deniability left. They can't even say they didn't know that the enemy created/controlled the soldiers holding blasters at their backs. They knowingly went into battle with "allies" that were under enemy control.

 

I think the idea is that, while they knew Dooku created the clones - they figured that by co-opting them - they had pre-empted whatever Dooku's original plan for them was.

 

That exactly.

 

I believe this is shortly before ROTS and as we know they were investigating during ROTS. I'm assuming they first wanted to find out all about the enemies plan before they made their own move, not a bad strategy. It was a precarious situation because the enemy could decide to attack them any moment, no matter if they were still fighting with the clones or not.

 

I still don’t see how that can be characterized as an assassination. First of all Palpatine isn’t subdued as he has just shot deadly lightning from his fingertips at Mace (and Mace doesn’t make the decision that he have to kill Palpatine until after that) and it is very obvious that should Mace let his guard down even for a second he will be fried.

So to return to the police-analogy: the criminal has lost his primary weapon but he still has a secondary one which he refuses to relinquish and which he has used trying to kill the arresting officer. Again, I would say that the police are left with little choice but to kill him as to protect their own lives.

I don’t see Mace's decision as being shocking to either Palpatine or Anakin. First of all, Palpatine was deliberately pushing Mace to that point because he wanted to force Anakin to make choice between him and the Jedi there and then. And Anakin? Anakin killed Dooku who, unlike Palpatine, had in fact been subdued and was completely helpless, and Anakin wanted to kill Palpatine earlier and the only reason he refrained from doing so (and the only reason he insists that Palpatine must stand trial) is because Palpatine had knowledge that he wanted. In the movies, the only Jedi I see reaching a moral breaking-point is Anakin.

 

You have to remember though - the police analogy can only stretch so far, because the Jedi Order have always held themselves to a slightly different moral code to what our RL police forces are obliged to do so. Whether that self-professed "heightened morality" is sensible or not is a matter of opinion (I myself would say that the Jedi's code often relies more on principle than it does logic).

But again, I think I need to reiterate what I said before - the side of the debate I am taking isn't whether or not the Jedi were morally or legally right in their actions. That's not what I'm debating. I'm coming at this from a narrative angle. I'm not making a judgement on whether or not Windu's actions in ROTS are morally justified, I am saying that, from a narrative perspective, the power, significance and potency of those moments is diminished when it is preceded by similar scenarios throughout the Clone Wars period.