ST The Knights of Ren

Which is cool, and could work well. I just think the Knights of Ren could progress and advance the story in a way we've yet to see without ever mentioning the Prophecy ever again. They do seem to predate the Sith though, and I do like the angle you're proposing so I guess I'm probably ok either way

 

No, I am proving the point that if you believe the Force punishes people that Anakin got punished. I don't believe that. But it was obviously intended as a thematic devise to show him paying for his sins.

Military. Not civilians.

Most modern societies argue that violence is only permissible in self-defense. That's what killing Sidious was. That''s what Luke did. To conflate that with the murder of the Jedi is hyperbolic.

It's a core Buddhist teaching. Lucas is a Buddhist. You mistake love, friendship and family for necessitating attachment.

You are sidestepping the obvious fallacy the KOR are 'enlightened'.

Except Lucas made TCW.

Unless they just make the KOR different from the Sith.

 

It doesn't seem as if you are "proving the point" at all... because I never suggested that the force was "punishing" anyone. That seems to be your interpretation, not mine.

The Jedi were acting as military. They were leading troops into combat. I'm not sure how you missed that e.g. General Kenobi etc. etc?

"Self defence"? And what prey is your criteria for that? State sanctioned violence is often used for attack and not defence. One mans freedom fighter etc. I believe Lucas purposely blurred the lines to show that it's not so black and white. Also, I think you tend to conflate the 'in universe' moral context of the SW films and the external moral context in which the films are made.

You are arguing semantics and again conflating two seperate things. Buddhists are allowed to fall in, and be in, love... and have relationships etc. In fact, Buddha actually encouraged this. And this is what the Jedi were denied. It's there in the films.

As previously indicated, your definition of enlightenment was a little limited, so who knows that the writers have planned? All the KoR require is the belief that they are enlightened, because they do not align themselves exclusively to the light or dark.

And in TCW, Lucas clearly showed the limited ability of those other darkside users. There were none more powerful than the Sith, there were none who were organised enough.

Isn't that what I'm putting forward? The difference is that I'm suggesting that it needs to be written, as opposed to audience osmosis.

Right back at you. It's facile to suggest that one has to read Tarkin to fully appreciate the Sith's uniqueness in context of TFA.[/quote]

 

You suggested that killing the Jedi couldn't have been bad because the Force 'rewarded' Anakin. I showed that - while this is not how it works - even based upon your logic it is not true. The Jedi did not need to die and it was not the right thing to do - this is demonstrated thematically.

Not only are you saying the destruction of the Death Star and the destruction of the Jedi both as permissible as each other, but you are also saying them murdering of the younglings was needed.

Self-defense is self-expanatory: n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery, or homicide.

I appeal to the rationality of people to know what reasonable force to be - the lowest amount of force needed to defend oneself.

Wait, I have to judge this by a different moral standard now?

The Jedi do love. It is restricted. But they do love. They needed to destroyed for this?

Just because you believe something doesn't make it so. We have a definition of enlightenment already - Luke, Yoda, etc.

You haven't seen the movie yet. How do you know how powerful the KOR are?

I agree. But you have tagged on this silly notion that the Jedi needed to be destroyed, etc, which is backed up by nothing. Why does this need to be added? All you need to do is explain the Sith's uniqueness and the current continuity holds up.

I agree it needs to be explained in the film. The point is that it is established in continuity.

 

No not at all... I asked you why, within your interpretation, Anakin was allowed to be redeemed and forgiven. You didn’t provide a response other than “he’d achieved an enlightened state”. The natural conclusion is that, no matter how heinous the crime, one can be redeemed and forgiven of anything. Ergo, no act that Anakin/Darth Vader committed, of free will, was bad enough that he was beyond redemption... I don’t agree with you. And if that was Lucas’ original idea, I think it’s a flawed one.

You mean like Hiroshima, Nagaski, the carpet bombing of Dresden, My Lai etc. I think your moral compass is a little bit convenient.

You don’t have to judge it by a different moral standard, but you probably should be cognisant of the difference between a fictional universe and reality.

It’s a fictional universe... If the force determines that the Jedi have lost their way by turning into soldiers, indifferent to the living force and unwilling to marry, procreate etc., then it’s up to the force to address how best to correct it and bring harmony... There are many such instances in biblical stories (God wasn’t above killing women and children right?). There are many such instances in popular fiction where anti-heroes do morally questionable things. Clearly Lucas, with intent, makes the central ‘hero’ (notice I state ‘hero’) of his 6 films partake in morally dubious acts. Why does he do this unless to explore the nature of good/evil concepts? Is Anakin ‘evil’ if it’s at the will of the force etc?

It’s not about what I believe. It’s about what enlightenment means at an intellectual level... and it usually goes hand in hand with a more pragmatic/less dogmatic approach to the world around us. A willingness to question rather than just accept what has been. An intellectual revolution. It seems to me that Lucas was saying explicitly that i.e. the Jedi were not enlightened in the PT, and any enlightenment they reached in the OT was as a result of what they had learned because of the orders fall.

Because the current model is not logical within the context of new material. To all intents and purposes, Sidious is/was depicted as the devil. A new context must be provided if we, the audience, are to believe that either... 1) Sidious wasn’t in fact the devil, but a mere acolyte. 2) If Sidious was the devil, there’s someone else just as dangerous/evil as Lucifer.

 

Ole Sheevy boy was your typical cliche mustache twirling and overdressed bad guy. I never was afraid of him. I want Snoke to be the Devil Incarnate, I want him to be pure fricking Evil. the type of Evil where he's like "Kill everybody, Man, woman, child, alien, human, wookiee, gungan. New Republic, Resistance, First Order I don't care. Kill them all."

 

Maybe Luke actually builds up a Jedi academy and teaches the old way. "Only use the light side". Then some dude named Ren started collecting Sith holocrons and started using the dark side. He left taking with some followers. (Kind of like the Future Sith Lords did back in the day). Maybe the moral of the Saga is you can't gather a bunch of force sensitive beings and expect them just to use the light side of the force. If you do then a darkness will grow. Maybe there can only be the force (no light/dark side).

 

Reminds me of Vergere's Teachings. I like that, but i hope the Knights of Ren are an ancient thread.

Spoiler

As hinted in Aftermath

 

Huh...haven't read it yet. Maybe I should to get my facts straight before I post more stuff.

 

I always thought that scene should have indicated he didn't kill them merely turned them into his first class of Inquisitors.

​

There's a lot in the prequels that really shouldn't have happened or needed rethinking entirely shame Disney can't redo those movies!​

 

Interestingly, before TPM was released, the EU always said that there could only be ONE Dark Lord of the Sith at a time. Since the novelizations always called Vader "Dark Lord of the Sith", this meant that Palpatine was NOT a Dark Lord of the Sith. In fact, in Empire's End, Vader has a tomb on Korriban but Palpatine doesn't.

 

The Knights of Ren could be a group that originate from outside the Star Wars galaxy. Perhaps they are on a crusade of some kind that has brought them to the GFFA.

 

The answer is that thematically, Anakin sins he spends 20+ years in a figurative hell, and he is redeemed in the end. Lucas' intent was that no-one is beyond redemption. Alternatively, you believe Anakin did good by killing the Jedi.

When did I say I agreed with these acts? Saying killing Sidious in self-defense of your son is the equivalent to a war crime is... hyperbolic.

Well the God analogy is ridiculous as to say those stories already aren't immoral. Anakin did an evil act. End of story. To say the act was 'okay' is immoral. Unless this story is to appeal to religious fundamentalists (i.e. it's okay because its 'Gods bidding'), or to fascists (killing is okay because we are getting somewhere).

I don't disagree. I don't think they needed to be destroyed though - it just made them incompetent. Lucas would have mentioned if this wasn't the case. To kill thousands of people because of a thing they were unconsciously doing (assuming they were doing it at all) is a morally bankrupt one.

This is the crux of the argument. The new context is that the Sith were unique, as it has been the context since TCW. What's with all the added Jedi stuff?

 

I like-a-this

 

That's certainly where I'm coming from. I'm not stating that this is what they are going to do... but something similar would provide new context and move the narrative on.

 

As I say, you seem so bound up in social constructs that I don’t think you can see the wood for the trees. If the intent is that “no-one is beyond redemption” (your words), then it means that no act is unforgivable. Ergo, killing Jedi was an act to be forgiven. My position is that for balance to be restored, the dogmatic quasi-religious institutions needed to be brought down. That included both Jedi and Sith. Whether one wants to attribute social constructs to that is for the individual, hence the examples in the below quote...

So when did Hiroshima, Nagasaki et al achieve official ‘war crime’ status? Is that what the US government believe or what you believe??? Many people uphold the view that the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary to end the war... as with the bombing of Dresden etc. (not me personally). So who is right? Is the USA really the Empire in Lucas’ analogy?

That’s rather an emotional response??? Why is the God analogy “ridiculous”? Aren’t the Jedi and Sith ‘believers’? To all intents and purposes, they worship it. Isn’t the force a ‘higher consciousness’ that has the ability to affect the things about it? Didn’t God kill women and children? Was that ‘evil’ or was it him/her cleansing the universe?

Again, it’s dependant on what the analogy is. Do you view The 10 Commandments (the film) in the same way when God was smiting ‘innocents’? As already mentioned, you are overlaying a ‘real world moral viewpoint on that of a fictional universe. If it were to transpire that the Jedi had to fall as part of restoring balance, that would have as little real world bearing on the moral ethics of death/murder as Samson and Delilah does.

 

Other members of the Knight of Ren

Spoiler

it seems that Sarco Plank has an interest in "relics", could he be a KoR? or related to them in some way?

 

I'm just never going to buy the theory that the Jedi needed to be destroyed.....To me the larger tragedy of the PT is obvious....The dumbass people and their greedy politicians were no longer interested in following the Jedi's example of peace and harmony. They themselves gave Palps his foothold and place/environment to grow into the evil he became.

I'm not going to get into it again but I certainly hope one of the messages/points of this ST isn't to give more credence to that bs propaganda Sids was spewing about the Jedi to Anakin in ROTS.....or needing to see Luke giving a lecture on how terrible Obi-Wan Yoda and the rest of the Jedi in the PT were.

It will be interesting to see the differences between the sith and Ren.....at the moment the Ren look and apparently act like Sith on steroids.....Angry full of emotion and fanaticism......

And why they are so obsessed with Vader and Sids Empire/Image of Power

 

I can agree with that. But I'd also say that I think that the Jedi were kinda long gone before the PT. They were part of that system of corruption, even though they were at odds with it for the most part. What we saw in the PT was a decaying order itself, removed from the living force, and adherents to their code. And you'd have to admit that both Yoda and Obi wan both seem sad about the past, not only in terms of losing dear friends, and their failure with Anakin, but also in terms of how the jedi order fell as well. Wars make not one great, right? As soon as they became soldiers, they ceased being true to their ideals. It was a trap set by Palps, and one they couldn't really avoid, but they fell for it

There were a lot of decisions made by characters in the PT. Anakin decided to chose the darkside. The result of that choice was death, and then being turned into a lifeless monster propped up only because of twistes machinery and the darkside itself.

Yoda and the jedi order chose to be soldiers, despite their moral objections that they wereny warriors, they were keepers of the peace. And that decision had similar consequences; their order nearly died as well,

Both were destroyed by Anakin. And both were resuscitated by Anakin.

And I think they both wanted Luke to restore the order, not to the PT era order, but the idealic one.

 

I believe Lucas showed Jedi commanding armies for a reason... not to show how "cool" they were, but to demonstrate how removed they were from their OT personas. It can be argued whether or not the Jedi institutions had to actually fall, but clearly they had to change. And it seems that Lucas showed that 'enlightenment' through their fall, which was a consequence of their own shortcomings as an order. Even one of the first lines of dialogue in TPM suggests that the Jedi have contradictory views, with Qui-Gon at least... and it's no coincidence that it's Qui-Gon who is the first to come back from the netherworld.

 

Firstly, the crux of this argument is why do you think the KOR will change the established continuity any more than has already been changed by TCW? We simply don't have enough information.

Someone being redeemed does not absolve them of their crimes. In fact Anakn is burned alive for them thematically.

They are borderline warcrimes. Dubious morality. I don't think that is the type of morality Lucas is supporting.

Surely you know as well as I do that the Bible (or at least the Old Testament) is highly immoral. Surely that can't be the moral standard we are aiming for.

Yes, I think its immoral and not a very good morality tale.

These films send messages. If the Jedi needed to be murdered then the message is no better than Old Testament stories.

You are absolutely correct. Reformed not destroyed though. It also didn't have anything to do with imbalance either in my opinion it just made the incompetent.

 

Besides the Opera scene, later when Palpatine reveals himself to Anakin; Palpatine tells Anakin were he to understand the Force he needed to embrace all of it's aspects. Not the narrow, dogmatic view of the Jedi. Palpatine then speaks of how his "mentor" taught him everything about the Force - including the dark side.

Crazy Theory Time:

With new canon, is it remotely possible that Darth Sidious pronounced himself as a Sith Lord when in fact he was not; or more specifically didn't have that authority?

WHAT????

Why?

If Palpatine succeeded from an order that predated or was not involved in the Jedi vs. Sith conflict; by manipulating the Clone War he could have used the "emergence" of the Sith as a further distraction for the Jedi; thus compounding their problems. The Jedi were seeking Sith Lords; not some older or different faction. Perhaps that was how Palpatine was able to mask his presence amongst the Jedi? As a master of the whole Force, he would utilize the light to mask the dark.

The opera scene story of Plagueis very well could have just been a very ancient "Sith Legend". As in, Palpatine's mentor schooled him about the foremost Force factions known in the galaxy.

The Tarkin book! The Tarkin book!

Palpatine very well may have used the "Plagueis as his master" for a cover story to mask his counterfeit claim to being a Sith Lord. This idea would not be out of the realm of possibility for the character of Palpatine. What about all the apprentices? Apprentices indeed, but unknowingly to another faction that they subscribed. Riffing on JJ's idea if the Nazis disappeared into Argentina after the war, and then later emerged... What if Palpatine was one of these persons that slipped back into the GFFA from Unknown Regions or Wild Space, assumed a moniker of a known darksider cult that other beings would recognize, and within decades took over the galaxy? Perhaps the Jedi were correct, the Sith were extinct for a millennium? Mace Windu may have been correct when they doubted the Sith could not have returned without their notice.

Consider this point: Palpatine as Darth Sidious never addresses himself as a Sith Lord. He basically speaks third person when referring to both the Jedi and the Sith. The argument could be made that neither do the apprentices - maybe there is something to that? Palpatine always speaks about the dark side of the Force, and the quest for more power. He doesn't speak about himself directly attempting to adhere to the Sith agenda. May also, in some way, explain the quest for super-weaponry as opposed to more Force power?

Ok. So, what's the big deal?

If a SINGLE person from this source could do all that Palpatine did in that relatively short amount of time, what could MANY accomplish?

Still unknown was Palpatine's true agenda beyond just controlling power. Taking the line that the Sith had truly been extinct for centuries prior to TPM, perhaps this other faction believe the Sith had clumsily stumbled upon something significant as far as the Force was concerned? Palpatine was himself on a secret quest to discover their knowledge? "The power to cheat death was accomplished by one, but together we can discover it's secrets."

Perhaps a Sith Lord was not Palpatine's immediate master? Rather his true *mentor* was one from a different source?

Snoke?

If Snoke or any of these new enemies are masters of both the light and the dark, that may necessitate Luke to have to explore the dark himself to become more complete? Perhaps that is the reason for his seclusion?

I know this is out there, but from a narrative standpoint it is necessary to blow up the current plot constrictions of this saga for it to grow.

 

Theologically it does. Forgiven but not forgotten perhaps... but forgiven nonetheless.

Point being, the moral compass differs from person to person, culture to culture, time period to time period... There are many people that believe those acts were justified. That it was for a greater cause. I believe Lucas consciously depicted a galaxy not so black and white as what it appeared on the surface. Good people can do bad things, bad people can do things they perceive as being for the greater good etc. It doesn’t absolve evil (if that’s what one believes), but it does make the context more complex... which I believe was something Lucas wanted to depict.

I’m not sure that it’s about the morality of the Bible (although I agree with you) but rather the contextualisation of them i.e. literally millions of people set their moral compass by that text. Most people, who believe in God, rationalise God’s actions as being for the ‘greater good’. You don’t have to agree with it.

Which underlines the point that the notion that perhaps the force itself decreed that the Jedi and Sith should fall, as a quasi-religious fable, is not without precedent... In fact it’s quite common in these type of tales where the ‘higher being’/Gods work by their own moral compass.

But, de facto, you believe that part of the message for achieving spiritual harmony is one should pick up the sword (if asked) not fall in love, not marry and not have children. And I think that misses the point. Anakin was redeemed, and the galaxy saved, because of the love of his son... a son who shouldn’t have ever been conceived (if the Jedi had their way). Point being, I think you are taking it too literally...

It’s subjective. It’s worth pointing out that the Jedi were not totally destroyed... as both Yoda and Obi-Wan (probably many more) survived. Could they have reformed without the fall of the order or republic? I’d like to hear that version of events to be able to asses it... but it seems to me that the Jedi (from Mace to Jocasta Nu) were a bunch of arses in the PT (again by Lucas’ design IMO), and would not be open to any wholesale internal reform.

 

OMG!!!!! This theory is awesome beyond words!!!!! I've always felt like Palpatine was too selfish to identify as a member of any sect. Also recall what I said about the 1991-1998 EU and the tombs on Korriban above. Maybe after entering the known galaxy, Palpatine apprenticed himself to Plagueis in order to eliminate a rival. Unbenownst to Plagueis, Palpatine was already a powerful Force-user well-trained in both sides of The Force.

 

Part of a system of corruption??? Oh dear lord.....why am I even getting into this again.....

I guess I missed the scenes where Yoda ,Mace and Obi-Wan were secretly meeting with politicians and taking bribes and given hit lists of rival politicians/businessmen to take care of and had been doing so for years upon years.

The tragedy of those films was watching Anakin and the rest of the GFFA turn its back on the Jedi and their symbol of peace and justice.....Yoda and his Jedi helped pave the way to a golden era.....and those stupid greedy people and their politicians( mainly them) ran it into the ground.

As it was pointed out they were forced into fighting the clone wars....Dooku had an army and was ready to lay waste to the republic until he got what he wanted.

Sure Maces line about not being soldiers could partially be about their Code but it was more in the context of how dicey a situation the republic was going to be in if it did turn to all out war and the separatists broke away.

That was the last option.....they were not unjust or betrayed their code by defending the republic in that situation. Had Yoda Mace,Obi-Wan, Ki-adi been running secret ops sabotaging Separtists territory/forces during negotiations, (practically goading them) before the Wars months or years beforehand then maybe I'd see that as a point.

Moving this back onto Ren.....I wonder if they will have as much philosophical subtext to them as well....Do you even think we'll know all that much about them by the end of the ST.....The Sith have been in 6 movies....and even they are still a good bit shrouded in mystery.