The *Official* Duchess Satine Kryze in The Clone Wars Discussion Thread

I disagree. If your definition were that of pacifism, then all pacifists would be wusses. I don't believe that for a second. And I consider myself a pacifist. Opposition to war does not mean opposition to self-preservation.

Here is one definition from dictionary.com:

3.
the principle or policy that all differences among nations should be adjusted without recourse to war.

And not starting fights hasn't been the default in a very long time when one looks at US foreign policy. I'd say that's also true of several other countries. Switzerland and Costa Rica could be considered pacifist but I have a hard time believing that they wouldn't defend themselves if attacked.

As far as peace taking power to enforce, yeah, that's what the Emperor and Vader said.

A Bo-Katan thread? Yes, please.

Sometimes heroes fall despite their strength.


Why wasn't it in the actual episodes?

Yes, but I don't think that's quite what Slowpokeking was alluding to. It's more along the lines of Sikhs and Buddhist monks: as pacifist people in possession of valuable holdings, such as their fortress-like temples, they became magnets for aggressors seeking to claim what they had without a fight. So the Sikhs and Buddhists learned self-defense, and while they remained pacifists, the infamy of their prowess often held would-be attackers at bay for fear of poking a hornet's nest.

That is peace through power. And it's a principle actually touched upon by the warrior clans later in Mandalorian society, with the advent of the kadikla movement. Kadikla preached the importance of building a Mandalorian state so strong that the Mandalorian people wouldn't need to fight, because no outside power would attempt to attack them, with more domestically available jobs than foreign mercenary and bounty hunter work. It's effectively the New Mandalorian ideal, but rendered more practically.

I assume it was just a buzz phrase created for previews, the same as Count Dooku's line "Everything you fought for will be destroyed..." and the reshuffling of many lines from Pre Vizsla's speeches.

No, I just think it would be a good line for her to say.

I admit I'm more of a fan of the Sith than Jedi especially after this incident, but even in real life, only with enough power and defense, you will have peace, of course the Sith went too extreme for that.

I know, I know, but we have to at least pretend to look at this from a perspective of someone who enjoys Ahsoka. Seriously though, she should be able to flesh out Anakin and still have her own strong character arc. But that would be called "good writing."

Only going into wars that are necessary is common sense, not pacifism. I prefer the more extreme definition of pacifism because otherwise it hardly makes sense to differentiate in the first place.

So how do you guys think you would have felt if Satine fought back before the end?

I would have liked to have had her make more of an effort to contradict Viszla when addressing the crowds, etc. - try to fight with words as is her wont rather than just shut up and back off.

Given the extreme lack of common sense in the US government over the past 60 years or so, I think the less extreme version still qualifies. Apparently nobody believes in only going into wars that are necessary anymore, and I don't like pacifists being made to look spineless.

I would have preferred that she fight back from the time the Black Sun and Pike invaded her planet rather than running away squealing, but if she had fought back at any point, I would have much more respect for her. I liked her in Season 2 and I'm sad that that characterization was lost.

Anakinfan, you don't get it, she's a pacifist. A pacifist.

Which apparently means she can do nothing but stand there or run, according to TCW writers.

Satine's version of pacifism:

Now I want to watch that movie again.

I'm not sure there's much else he could have done in that situation anyway.

This also remind me of the Jedi in this incident.

I like the fact that Satine stayed true to her pacifist beliefs. It can be mistaken for lack of courage but is arguably more courageous in less obvious ways. A lot of people have "beliefs" that get shredded up when they become inconvenient. Sticking to your beliefs facing down the barrel of a gun takes more nerve than probably anyone here has. And I'm not someone who's a big fan of Satine in particular, I'm defending the notion of pacifism.

That said, the character of Satine is kind of screwed because she seemed to go back on her pacifist beliefs in Corruption when she engaged in violence. So now it seems that she was willing to abandon her pacifist ideology in the name of poisoned tea and the children, but then went back to and stuck with it in the most extreme of circumstances as her planet was literally being overrun by warmongers. If it doesn't ruin, it at least greatly weakens the whole character.

Move a step away from her belief is not to ruin it, but keep it alive. She knew that well in Corruption but was ruined in Season 5.

Doing the polar opposite of what a belief would have one do keeps it alive? How, exactly?

After Corruption, is Mandalore in peace? Yes, is her faction in power? Yes.

After Lawless, is Mandalore in peace? No, is her faction in power? No, it died with her.

That's how politics works, you can't be too extreme, compromise with others to keep your faction alive is usually wise. Especially when you are facing the threat of annihilation.

You seem to be arguing the ends justify the means, which is a separate debate, but regardless of the answer to that, the means here is abandoning one's ideology, not keeping it alive. The ends justifying the means doesn't mean you didn't change your ideology, it means you're justified in doing so. It's still changed.

I'm sorry but you have to, it's just like in the movie Lincoln, Lincoln said he didn't try to abolish slavery from the beginning because they got a war to fight and he didn't want to lose others' support.

LOL, nobody "has to" do anything. People make decisions based on which consequences are either more beneficial or least painful.