Why didn't Luke strike down the Emperor in ROTJ?

Granted Luke is idealistic and flooded with the Light Side, but considering his and Mara's agreement to actively kill Lumiya (LOTF: Sacrfice) as a threat to family and the galaxy, why would killing Palps be any different?

Granted, also, that it took Luke 30+ years to come around to that way of thinking.

 

He did take a swing at him, then had to deal with Vader for the rest of the movie.

When he threw away his lightsaber later, it wasn't the choice between killing Palpatine and surrendering, it was between joining him and being a Jedi. And the latter did lead to the Emperor's death.

 

Exactly.

 

Thanks. I figured, Luke was positioning his father to come back to the light. It was a calculated risk, and one that still could have gone the other way.

Thanks for the responses.

 

The Emperor was provoking Luke to use his anger and his hatred to "Strike him down." Luke didn't have a vendetta with Palps, he was more intent on bringing his father back to the light side. Obi-Wan and Yoda knew that Luke must face Vader alone so that Luke could remind "Anakin" that there was still good in him. I don't believe that Luke would ever have been ready to take on Palps by himself nor the "Dark Force Lightning." In hindsight Luke would know that Vader would be the first to meet him before Palps. This is where he planted the first seeds of good in Vaders mind.

 

Thanks. I figured, Luke was positioning his father to come back to the light. It was a calculated risk, and one that still could have gone the other way.


I don't think it was a calculated act on Luke's part. I think that his refusal to strike down the Emperor or Vader has more to do with him refusing to allow her own inner darkness and potential hatred to overwhelm him.

 

Same here.

 

All of this proves my observation that the Jedi philosophy is suicidal. Luke could only 'win' by tossing away his weapon. Pathetic. These are the good guys? You would think the light side would be just as tenacious as the dark side.

Don't be angry at a cutthroat tyrant? Don't try to assassinate a dictator because anger magically makes you join him? Makes no sense. I guess this is what you get when you try to practically apply Buddhist influences.

<[-]> Saber

 

It basically just boils down to taking the moral high-road and refusing to become the very thing you're fighting. It's hardly exclusively Buddhist. I mean, I don't like most of what Nietzche says but even he believed it.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster."

"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

That and the existence of the Dark Side of the Force within Star Wars makes fighting out of anger lead to becoming evil in a way that it doesn't always in reality.

 

He did take a swing at him, then had to deal with Vader for the rest of the movie.



His swing at the Emporer always kind of disappointed me. Watch it again. Luke takes a downward swing at Palps. What in the world was he trying to do ??????? Cut off Palps' legs ???? It made it very easy for Vader to block. He should have made an upward swing towards Palps' neck for goodness sake.


Think Luke, think.

 

I totally agree, that was a pretty pathetic death blow. Some claim that he was actually going for Vader, but either way that was a crappy swing.

As to the topic, we all know that if the Emporer is encouraging you to strike him down, and to give into your hate, you shouldn't do it. Luke's father was standing right infront of him, and thats a good example as to why not to do it.

 

Remember that Luke told the Emperor "Soon I'll be dead, and you with me". Luke was prepared to die when the Rebels destroyed the Death Star. He had also decided that he was going to turn his father back to the good side or die trying. By revealing to Leia her origins and her ability to use the force he was letting her know that she would have to take his place if he did not return. He had accepted this possibility. Saving his father was more important. He was going to give it all he had even if it cost him his life. At the moment he threw his sabre away he was showing his father that he would not kill him, nor would he kill the Emperor in order for Vader could become the new leader of the Sith. In doing so he defeated them both. He was not going to play their game either way. Also, Luke was putting the decision to act squarely in Vader's hands.


Wow, I'm a geek.

 

Don't forget that Luke threw his lightsaber away just after he "disarmed" Vader.

 

Clever.

 

It DOES make sense. And, as has been said, it's hardly exclusivly Buddhist. Would you say Jesus is a poor 'good guy' because to 'win' he allowed himself to be captured, beaten, ridiculed, and murdered? And that up to that point he often talked about how people should be meek and humble and turn the other cheek if someone wrongs them? 'Winning' in many philosophies, particularly those with some afterlife or spiritual reckoning, often involves something more than being the last one standing or accumulating the most wealth/power.

Luke wouldn't 'magically' join the Emperor if he got angry. By tapping into an overly emotional side, however, Luke would've experienced the ease and seeming spurt of strength one obtains through such actions. If that apparent power wasn't seductive enough, chances are good that whatever actions he did whilst flowing with his emotions would result in decisions that would haunt him afterwards... poor choices that would gnaw at him and only cause him to make mistakes again and again. In the end, he'd either become addicted to the power or spiral out of control of himself. Palpatine would be there as a means to more power, or as a guide, hence taking on the mentor or master figure until such time as Luke felt the old man was in the way or making things worse. In many ways, falling to the Dark Side is like failing at anger management or succumbing to alcoholism or other substance abuse.

As much as the prequels handled the details a little poorly in my opinion, look at Anakin. When he strikes Mace Windu, he does so out of impulse with emtional reasons dominating over logical ones. At that point, he realizes he screwed up and in the turmoil of these thoughts, he continues to make bad choices and sides with Palpatine partially, I think, because he feels he has just burned some bridges behind him and has no real other choice. Luke, meanwhile, unleashes his anger and feels how it allows him to aggressively assault Vader and sway the tide completely in his favor. His hate allows him to toss aside the restraints he had placed upon himself in dealing with Anakin and that allowed him victory. But the Emperor's words (and this has been discussed elsewhere as a big flaw in Palpatine's scheming) and noticing Vader's arm gave Luke a moment to reflect. Unlike Anakin, who only saw despair, Luke rejected what he had just tasted and regained control and composure.

His personal victory came there and he also had faith that by dragging the situation on, his friends would destroy the Death Star and his side would also have their victory. There was no need to fight anymore and by fighting, he ran the risk of the Emperor, who was good at manipulating emotions and eating at one's resolve through taunts, to again succeed at breaking Luke's determination.

If Luke could've calmly walked up to the Emperor and said, "Look, you're a bad, bad man. If you don't surrender peacefully, you'll have to die." and the Emperor refused, I don't think it would've been a big 'You've turned to the Dark Side' incident. As others have pointed out already, Luke's primary goal wasn't destroying the Emperor. He was trying to save his father first and foremost. I believe he was earnest when he said he didn't think Vader would take him to the Emperor. When Vader DID turn him over, however, he was in a quandry. Luke was frustrated by the situation and Palpatine's egging eventually got to him, as later did Vader's talk about Leia. Under such unbridled emotions, it would've been a mistake to strike down Palaptine if he was able to.

Yes, t

 

Well why did Vader stop him from killing the Emperor. Perhaps he knew that Luke would have fallen to the Dark Side if he did.

 

Vader believed at that point Luke could kill Palpatine and walk away a Jedi. He wasn't angry enough yet.

 

I agree. As Cloudreaper stated above, Luke's goal was to turn Vader away from the dark side. At that point of the film, Luke is not embroiled with the pure rage he feels later on. If he had struck down Palpatine at that moment, it is unlikely that he would have fallen to the dark side. Vader knows that Luke does not want to harm him (Vader), and if Luke killed Palpatine at that moment, Vader would be the only remaining Sith. Since Luke does not wish to harm Vader, it would have been impossible to turn him. Thus, Vader blocks the blow.

 

Well

for one thing he knew it would have meant him falling to the Darkside. Now how this is so,I still have no idea.

The first time he was stopped by Vader. However, even if he had tried after he had beaten vader down, I doubt if he would have been able to. There is the Force Lightning factor ya know.

 

He was obviously above such a fithy act of aggresion! When it comes to the moral high ground, Luke Skywalker is at the top of the heap!

 

Lukes first and only thoughts are of how to get his Father out of Sidious's hands. So killing him was never part of the plan as far as Luke was concerend. Deep down I'm sure he knew he'd have to die in order to have his Father back.

 

What exactly is . . . "the Light"?

 

Well it seems to me that since Luke starts going ballistic when vader starts talking about "sister" and what not he must have been provoked to the point of forgeting his true goal until vader's severed hand gives him a little reminder.

 

The Light Side or as Luke calls it 'the good side.'