Were the Jedi really the defenders of peace and justice in the Old Republic?

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

The Jedi Knights were the self appointed defenders of peace and justice in the galaxy. But did they actually make any significant positive difference in the galaxy? And did they themselves uphold a high standard of conduct in their dealings with the rest of the galaxy? My belief is that they didn?t.

Consider the Phantom Menace. In this film, less than two and a half hours long, we see
* Apartheid on Naboo.
* Slavery on Tatooine (and apparently throughout Hutt space as well).
* Large-scale corruption in the Galactic Senate.
* It turns out that the Jedi are recruited as very young children, taken from their parents. Given the nature of human parents, I find it highly unlikely that most parents would willingly turn their babies over to strangers, no matter who those strangers were.
* When the Trade Federation invades Naboo and begins detaining the people in camps, the Jedi do not intervene. The only two Knights that they send are charged to protect the Queen and investigate the return of the Sith, not to deliberately engage the Trade Federation.
* In the novelization (I think; this might have been from the SWRPG) it is revealed the Gran have for all intents and purposes stolen the planet Malastare from the Dug, and the Dug are heavily oppressed.

In Episode II, it is also revealed that Jedi are not allowed to marry (NOT a spoiler; it's on the teaser poster). In related sections of the EU, it's mentioned that some of the most wretched poverty in the galaxy could be found within kilometers of the Jedi Temple.

So then, were the Jedi Knights really what they claimed to be? Did they actually actively defend peace and justice? Or was the order rotting from within, just like the Old Republic itself?

 

Hey, Gandolf...

The Jedi Knights were the self appointed defenders of peace and justice in the galaxy. But did they actually make any significant positive difference in the galaxy? And did they themselves uphold a high standard of conduct in their dealings with the rest of the galaxy? My belief is that they didn?t.

Well, yes and no. If they influenced overly, you might end up with some weird form of theocratic rule where the Jedi heavily dictate policy without being in charge. That might go too far and you would end up with the silliness like the King priest of Istar in Dragonlance.

Consider the Phantom Menace. In this film, less than two and a half hours long, we see
* Apartheid on Naboo.

Hum, Naboo was a soveriegn system. That might have enabled them to sidestep certain laws.

* Slavery on Tatooine (and apparently throughout Hutt space as well).

"...The Republic doesn't exist out here..." Too far away from the authorities to do any good. And it seemed to be the parasitical Hutts were powerful and/or wily enough to avoid direct control of the Republic while leeching off it at the same time.

* Large-scale corruption in the Galactic Senate.

Inevitable given a Government of that size.

* It turns out that the Jedi are recruited as very young children, taken from their parents. Given the nature of human parents, I find it highly unlikely that most parents would willingly turn their babies over to strangers, no matter who those strangers were.

Agreed, of all the things in the movies I have found this and midi-chlorians to be total and utter BS. This is one step away from Jedi breeding creches and Psi Corps' selective breeding program to ensure more powerful telepaths in Babylon 5. Along with the "Too old" crapola makes this a very terrifying aspect of the Jedi Knights of the time, and I am very grateful that none of the current authors have thought to integrate it into the books we read now.

* When the Trade Federation invades Naboo and begins detaining the people in camps, the Jedi do not intervene. The only two Knights that they send are charged to protect the Queen and investigate the return of the Sith, not to deliberately engage the Trade Federation.

"We can protect you, but we can't fight a war for you..." Yes, I agree. Seems to me, that if the Jedi were true guardians of peace and justice, it should have led to direct confrontation with the Trade Federation rather than a secret mission with Jedi posing as ambassadors. The blockade and capture of the population and putting them into camps seems to violate everything the Jedi are supposed to stand for.

* In the novelization (I think; this might have been from the SWRPG) it is revealed the Gran have for all intents and purposes stolen the planet Malastare from the Dug, and the Dug are heavily oppressed.

?? No knowledge of this. Can't comment.

[]iIn Episode II, it is also revealed that Jedi are not allowed to marry (NOT a spoiler; it's on the teaser poster).[/i]

Fortunately, it has been ignored. I don't like this mainly because it stifles free will and if a Jedi can't be free how they be expected to protect it for others?

In related sections of the EU, it's mentioned that some of the most wretched poverty in the galaxy could be found within kilometers of the Jedi Temple.

Again I am reminded of Dragonlance when Crusania goes back in time. She is in her room in the King priest's palace in Istar and finds knick knacks and decorations that if sold could feed dozens of families for a year back when she comes from. One could argue that the Jedi are guardians of peace and justice, but not feeding the poor. I would argue that starving people IS an injustice.

So then, were the Jedi Knights really what they claimed to be? Did they actually actively defend peace and justice? Or was the order rotting from within, just like the Old Republic itself?

I think in the Prequel Trilogies the Jedi have become very much like the senate. Lazy and ineffective, ins

 

Well the corruption of the old Republic was only in the 1000 years leading to ANH. And yes they were the keepers of peace, the sith conflicts are the only apparent major wars in that 15000 year time span.

 

The Jedi had it coming.

 

It's good to be wiped out and then start out fresh every once in a while...

 

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

 

G:The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke

Yep, often it has been thus.

G: The Jedi Knights were the self appointed defenders of peace and justice in the galaxy. But did they actually make any significant positive difference in the galaxy? And did they themselves uphold a high standard of conduct in their dealings with the rest of the galaxy? My belief is that they didn?t.

Hmm, OK so far...

G: Consider the Phantom Menace.

Ah, but the Jedi, as a tradition of peacekeepers span at least 10 millennia, but let's allow that to side and say you're focusing on the Prequel Jedi, thus marking out a particular kind of Jedi.

G: In this film, less than two and a half hours long, we see
* Apartheid on Naboo.

Hmm, how are you using this term? I assume you're using it to refer to the fact that the Naboo and the Gungans live separately on the same planet, with each being dismissive of the other. Yet, apartheid historically understood, in both South Africa and the USA, involves not only two groups living separately in the same planet/country, but one of the groups being in a position to be stronger and contemptous of the other. Thus in South Africa the Afrikaaner State oppressed the black majority and enforced segregation, with an attitude that the blacks were inferior savages. We don't really see anything comparable in TPM. Given what we see of the Gungans, it suggests they have the ability to match the Naboo, possibly even best them in water, perhaps the same is true for the Naboo on land. Though there is distrust and mislike, we don't see the systematic oppression of one group by the other that warrants the term 'apartheid'.

G: * Slavery on Tatooine (and apparently throughout Hutt space as well).

Here though, you are accurate. It seems that in the Prequel era economics has suborned morality. Yet, are the Hutts members of the Republic? It is the case that the Jedi do not interfere on Tattooine because it is outside of the Republic. Chances are good the Jedi are pledged to serve the Republic and not interfere in other cultures, as to do so would violate their freedom. The idea that universal morality overrides a particular culture, in certain specific circumstances, such as slavery, is obviously deceased in the Republic.

G: * Large-scale corruption in the Galactic Senate.

Political ideals have been corroded away, with Senators being more interested in their own good, their race's good over all other considerations, such as the galactic good. Thus slavery and probably other questionable socuetal practices are permitted under cultural pluralism. It is debatable that the Jedi could do anything about this though. Unless they have the power of law enforcement AND sentencing? Both would be needed or the Jedi could arrest corrupt politicians who are let off by a bought judiciary, or corrupt politicians are sentenced but freed from their sentence by crooked police.

G: * It turns out that the Jedi are recruited as very young children, taken from their parents. Given the nature of human parents, I find it highly unlikely that most parents would willingly turn their babies over to strangers, no matter who those strangers were.

This is easily the worst element introduced, as it leads to the suspicion Lucas intends to propose that the Jedi earnt their genocide and Anakin was right to do so. It is damning wrong to coerce parents to give up their children, unless those parents are abusing them, but that will be in a minority of cases.

G: * When the Trade Federation invades Naboo and begins detaining the people in camps, the Jedi do not intervene. The only two Knights that they send are charged to protect the Queen and investigate the return of the Sith, not to deliberately engage the Trade Federation.

This is wrong. It may be that the Jedi cannot defeat the TF's armies alone but they do not need to, they only need to get to the leaders. Since the leaders came to Naboo it should be an easy operation. If the leaders had stayed on

 

Counterpoint.

Would the Jedi operating outside the law technically just make them vigalantes and cause worse corruption and chaos than just freeing all the slaves on Tatooine cures?

I see the Jedi as Lawful Good in the Old Republic not Neutral Good.

Basically that means the Jedi promote the law and good simultaneously out of the knowledge that eventually the law will cause good to emerge and triumph over evil.

Seriously speaking I do have 3 points or so.

* The jedi had only 10,000 members, how exactly were they supposed to stop ALL evil in the galaxy?

* Priests are required to be celibate, monks to give up the world, and thus meaning they'll never have families. Many people like families and think they're wonderful so is it an abomination they do these things?

The Jedi are a monastic order that is elitist in the Prequels, not perhaps a perfectly PURE thing (this is one of the things Lucas is saying about corruption even in the Jedi) but can they really be blamed?

How much wealth do you own that you should sell like your house, clothes off your back, and in your bank accounts that might feed hundreds?

Ye without sin cast first stone

* The Trade Blockade was a horrible action of a corrupt Senate but it hadn't been an invasion and from what I could tell the two races of the Naboo were divided not discrimminated against (The Gungans discrimminated against the Naboo equally in that respect)

If the Jedi stopped to deal with every problem then they're place would be everywhere.

They arn't the galaxy's saviors they are a part of it. One of the key themes of NJO is that everyone is blaming the Jedi for the Vong when they themselves are fighting as hard as they can and can't do better.

Sometimes being good isn't enough and you have to deal with the consequences of their being no perfect happy ending.

You can just as easily ask questioning the Jedi's morality why Obi wan had to deal with Ponda Baba by cutting off his arm instead of using a mind trick.

Like or not no one is perfect and the Jedi are a warrior order with flaws like everyone else.....the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth is a good thing but the fact remains he was a pacifist and a man who willingly died for his beliefs.

That sort of emotion and purity isn't meant to be the focus of Star Wars which includes a lot of violence as part of it's purpose and where they'res violence they'res people who are flawed

 

I see the Jedi as Lawful Good in the Old Republic not Neutral Good.

Actually, I see them more as Lawful Neutral rather than LG in AD&D parlance. They seemed more interested in preserving the status quo rather than attempting to do what was in the best interests of all or serve the greatest good. If Qui-Gon were truly LG, he would have attempted to free the slaves on Tatooine regardless of what it's laws were since he would have believed that it was in the best interests of freedom and justice, and the people enslaved. An AD&D Paladin or Priest would not stand for slavery, however, an LN might. An LE would support it, especially if they were in charge or had something to gain from it, CGs and NGs would be first in line to punch out the slavers, CNs wouldn't care unless it directly involved their interests, and CEs wouldn't get involved unless they could be in charge.

 

Counterpoint

This is actually the "Centerpoint" arguement all over again. The basic question you have to ask yourself is what would happen if Qui Gon Jinn had tried to free the slaves and had gotten himself killed, Queen Amidala captured as a slave (violate likely), and the People of Naboo doomed.

There's no reason to believe that Qui Gon Jinn wouldn't have tried to do something about the slavery present on Tatooine, BUT he made a judgement call to POSTPONE it.

You are asking yourself not whether the Jedi support slavery or not (I don't think they do or they might try nonviolent means to do so) but whether risking the lives of everyone on Naboo was worth a situation which is awful but not necessarily as bad.

For instance Qui Gon Jinn finds himself in the South. Would he load up every member of the African American ship upwards and take them from the only life they've known? If so would he stay with them to help them re-adjust and what about the people who intervene does he have to kill them?

These are all difficult questions and while slavery is an inherently evil institution the Jedi as a LG organization might instead of "Jedi heroics" try to free the slaves by raising awareness in the Senate/purchasing the slave's freedom or working to attack the source of slavery's evil in the slave traders.

Saying for instance a Quaker is LN just because he supports ending slavery through the Senate of the Union rather than John Brown force is I think unfair

 

I further support the Jedi did go back and free the slaves. For instance in a children's Novel Anakin is allowed to go back and funnel them away to freedom at least some

Spoiler Episode II
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
and Shimmi is free there somehow isn't she?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why I say Lawful Good is the Jedi do not concern themselves completely with the concept of good but question whether or not the good will negatively impact the law and thus good in the end as well.

Thus for Prequel Jedi a society must not only be perfectly good but well ordered good to reach that perfect good and sometimes the price of chaos outweighs the temporary good.

This is why the Jedi failed in the end.

 

when the jedi first went to naboo, the trade federation hadn't taken over. It was just a blockade, remember? no one even knew naboo had been incaded until the Qui-gon and obi-wan went to Coruscant.

 

Why I say Lawful Good is the Jedi do not concern themselves completely with the concept of good but question whether or not the good will negatively impact the law and thus good in the end as well.

Um, then that's a problem. Lawful goods tend to strive to do what will do the most good for the most people. They also believe that the laws MUST support and protect the good, if it doesn't then an LG will not support said laws and work to change them or destroy them.

However, that isn't really the argument. The argument is Qui-Gon weighed the situations. He could save, at the most, a couple thousand slaves or aid millions on Naboo. Those were his choices and so he chose to aid the situation on Naboo, because it served the greater good.

Thus for Prequel Jedi a society must not only be perfectly good but well ordered good to reach that perfect good and sometimes the price of chaos outweighs the temporary good.

Except this is impossible and the Jedi know that. Don't confuse chaos with unlawful behavior, because that would imply an LG couldn't work with a CG, which is untrue. An LG Paladin would work happily with a CG Fighter, though the Fighter's behavior/methods might make the Paladin wince a bit, (especially at night when the Paladin is tucked into his bed and reading his prayers while the CG is down in the bar wenching his brains out).

Second, I submit that all Jedi are not LG. Guys like Mace Windu are LN, Corran Horn is either CG or NG. Luke Skywalker is NG, Mara Jade is CG, Kyp Durron is CN.

And a CG can work for a lawful organization. They will tend to do things their way, plus they often have a better understanding of individuals than a lawful would. Chaotic Goods tend ot focus on each person they have to deal with, and generally only work in groups when they have to, i.e. the group is going in the same direction s/he is.

Were he not pressed for time, i.e. had he and Obi-Wan just landed on Tatooine, then both would have worked to free the slaves, even if that meant gutting a few Hutts.

 

There are several important distinctions you need to make about the Jedi mission and philosophy.

While they are called the defenders of peace and justice they are not the ones who are supposed to create peace and justice. Rather, the Jedi are supposed to ensure that the environment is conducive to peace and justice - remove impediments to the peace process. Metting out justice implies that they must sit in judgement of others and that is not the Jedi way. They defend those who create the peace. They defend the governmental or social systems that deliver justice to the people. Think of them more along the lines of what United Nations peacekeeping forces should be.

They can't force a nation or a people to peace or make a judgement on a person or group. They are there to make sure the people can do this themselves. Protect the diplomats, advise, negotiate, mediate. Ultimately the question of whether there will be peace and justice is up to the people. If these seemingly all-powerful Jedi showed up and told people how their society was going to work, it wouldn't be a real or lasting peace. It would also put the Jedi in the position of 'playing god'.

When Qui-Gon tells Amidala that he cannot help her fight a war he is explaining the Jedi mission to her. What he is saying is 'I can defend you so that you can get to the palace, survive to resolve this and bring peace back to your people, but I can't fight for the Trade Federation or make the peace for you.' Specific situations you mention are therefore difficult for the Jedi to address.

As to the seperate societies of the Naboo and the Gungans, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan didn't even know of this disparity until they were on a more important mission to resolve the larger issue of the Trade Federation blockade. When they spoke with Boss Nass, it was clear that the Gungan society seemed content to remain seperate. It would not be the Jedi's place to say to them 'You must live in peace side-by-side with the Naboo.' Jedi don't make decisions for races and cultures. If they want this, the Jedi would certainly help but the Gungans would have to ask them or otherwise make it clear to them. Further, when we see Padme (who is actually the ruler of the Naboo) she isn't entirely sure who the Gungans even are (quote: "You're a Gungan, aren't you?" - that much should have been obvious if there was a conscious effort on the part of the Naboo to keep them seperate and she was well aware of their culture.)

Slavery on Tatooine is a stickier issue to tackle. Again, it seems as though the rest of the galaxy isn't aware of the slavery on this outer rim world. Beyond ignorance is the issue of jurisdiction. Tatooine exists outside of the Republic and so the Council, which is an agency of the Republic, could not actually order any Jedi to go free slaves there. Then there is the matter of making choices for a sovereign state, of creating the justice instead of just facilitating it. The Hutts are crimelords and have created a situation where slavery exists, but they also seem to rule significant portions of the planet if not all of Tatooine. A Jedi could try to convince the powers that be to abolish slavery, but actually fighting the Hutts would be a judgement against their society. If the Hutts made the mistake of bringing slaves into the Republic, or slave trading in the Republic, then the Jedi could probably act. It's not legal in the Republic. But on Tatooine, the slavery is a part of their society and a campaign against the Hutts to free slaves would be a judgement against their society.

Corruption in the Galactic Senate is difficult to tackle and would have to be handled on a case by case basis. If a Jedi could produce proof of an individual case of corruption, it would certainly be within the parameters of their mission to bring this corruption to light. The Jedi could also advise the Senate on how they could change things to reduce corruption, but they could not make these changes themselves as they would put themselves in the position of governing the ga

 

I disagree, Kier...
"All Jedi...Mara Jade is CG"

Mara Jade's not a Jedi - she's a "New Jedi" (whatever the heck that is ? ). And, I'd put her at Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil.

 

The comment on all the poor around the Jedi Temple and probably all over Coruscant...

First of all, shy of a perfect utopia, there will always be poor people in an society one encounters. The Jedi can't just give them money and be done with it. Not to stereotype or anything, but some of the poor people around may not use the money as thay should, but may buy glitterstem to some other drug with it. Even those who use the money for survival are boiund to run out of it sooner or later. Like Mara said to Anakin on Dantoine when she was talking about a simulation the Jedi had to run about a village that was going to get flooded. Anakin used the force to cause a landslide and create a levi blocking the water amd left it at that. This does not mean any furhter floods wouldn't destroy the village. MAra, however, got to the root of the problem, businesses forced these people to live on a flood plain. By solving the root problem she could fix this one. So, the Jedi need to find out WHY these people are poor, not just help em out and leave them. But even this is a big task for on 10,000 Jedi.

 

Forgive me for being brief earlier. I stated that...
The Jedi Had it Coming, without much explanation.

Allow me to set up a situation - it's a situation we've all seen before...

A "dark" and "evil" man standing menacingly in a doorway...
The "good" peacekeepers standing before him, perceive that this person *MUST* be evil and attack him...
The menace is vanquished.

A scene from "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace?" Nope, it's a real life situation that played out in New York city not too long ago. The "evil menace" was an innocent black man, shot in excess of 40 times by New York City police officers. He was shot because he was something different from the officers (a black man) and because the officers involved perceived him to be a menace because of this difference. The fact that he was innocent is not a point of debate - he was completely innocent by any standard. (His "crime" was raising a wallet for identification) The fact that he was "evil" perhaps is a point of debate to some. To the "peacekeepers," the people that have to deal with people like him every day, he **WAS** "evil" and therefore had to be destroyed. I suppose there are also those people in this world that agree with the officers that the "evil" had to be destroyed. Sadly, the officers' actions are not a one-time occurance. Stories like this play out all over America and the world...in Jasper, Texas. In former Yugoslavia. In the former Soviet Union. In the Middle East. People are killing each other over the fact that the victims' only crime is being different - whether it's the color of their skin, the religion they believe in, the way they think. In Star Wars, it seems that this also holds true and we can include which side of the Force they believe in, which organization/class they belong to. It's evil in our galaxy the same that it is evil in any other.

Now, allow me to set up another scene...

A "dark" and "evil" man standing menacingly in a doorway...
The "good" peacekeepers are at the site, perceive that this person *MUST* be evil and attack him...
The menace is vanquished.

A scene taken off of the front page of New York City headlines? Nope - it's a scene taken from "Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace." Good and evil are not fluid things which can be molded and twisted by those who use them. If that's the case, then Palpatine was "good" and the Jedi are "evil" from some POV. No, good and evil are set in stone. Star Wars, at its core is a tale of good and evil - no, not the "good" and "evil" that can be twisted and changed - the true good and evil of the world. The story is meant for us, people on Earth to understand it - Lucas made it here not in some distant galaxy. Therefore, what is good and evil for us HAS to be good and evil for the characters of Star Wars. It is, simply WRONG to kill someone purely based on his beliefs, ideas, thoughts, color of his skin. The Jedi killed Maul not for threatening the Queen (the movie clearly shows that Maul never once even singled out the Queen for anything), but simply because he was their age-old enemy - a Sith. If you think otherwise, then you are not basing your opinions on what is seen in the movie (or seen better in the novellization, screenplay and script). They, also, were the aggressors in the final battle. No, Qui-Gon would've been entirely within his right to kill Maul for the attack on Tatooine - it was in self-defense. However, proactively trying to kill someone based on one's perception of some future actions IS NOT acceptable - not for us, nor for the Jedi.

We have had much debate and discussion about what exactly the role of the Jedi is. Perhaps, we should explore what the Jedi are NOT. The Jedi are NOT the Klu Klux Klan, able to kill anyone because they think he may be a member of a group of people or follower of some idea not considered to be acceptable. The Jedi are NOT Salem Puritans who seek to destroy anyone that thoughts or feelings are considered unaccep

 

And here I thought Qui-Gon died from a massive hole in his chest.... The cause of death was not being on morally high ground? Interesting.

We don't know what Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan had sensed through the Force about Maul. They have a sense beyond our five senses and through the movie we can only go by two of our senses - sight and hearing. I submit that the Jedi would have been sensing something through the Force about Maul as well - hatred, the dark side, etc. They also would have been able to anticipate that Maul was going to strike at them through the Force ("He sees things before they happen - that's a Jedi trait" - Qui-Gon).

Ignoring whatever they perceived through the Force, let's run down this situation. The door opens and there is a figure blocking their way. It is the same person who attacked you without provocation on Tatooine several days ago. He has in his outstretched hand what you know from Tatooine to be his lightsaber. He stands poised, staring at you with a challenging body language. You ignite your lightsabers and he does the same. He does not speak, but with a grim look, eyes never wavering from yours, assumes a fighting stance.

Igniting their lightsabers to prepare for battle is hardly the same as shooting someone 40 times because of their skin color. You're oversimplifying the situation considerably to state your case. Trying to parlay or not taking a defensive action would have resulted in two skewered Jedi at the feet of Maul in short order.

Also, the part of the Jedi's mission to Naboo involving the Sith was to 'discover the mystery of the Sith'. Never once did anyone tell them they should wipe out the Sith. When Obi-Wan killed Maul, it was after Maul had killed Qui-Gon and attempted to kill Obi-Wan by trying to force him to plummet to his death. Saying that Qui-Gon deserved to die because he attacked someone just because they were Sith is overly simplistic and one-sided.

If the police see someone who is a known armed felon standing in a doorway, it is generally accepted that they draw their weapon and identify themselves as police, commanding the felon to drop his weapon if there is one in his hand. The Jedi drew their weapons. There's no point in saying 'Freeze! Jedi Knights!" since anyone who sees the lightsaber and has been trained in Jedi techniques knows what they are and what they want. They ignite their lightsabers, pretty much communicating "Stand down. We're Jedi, there's two of us and one of you." None of this seems to bother Maul, and he ignites his weapon as well. If after a police officer draws his weapon on a suspected armed felon and that felon draws a weapon on them, intent is pretty clear. It's not like they saw him on the street, said 'Over there! That looks like the Sith!' and gunned him down in cold blood.