Legacy: That's it, I'm out

RE: the Empire
Our concept of the Empire grows from our reading of the EU through the Dark Nest Trilogy and understanding where LotF was going. this is NOT Palpatine's Empire -- or at least it wasn't under Roan Fel. It changed, it evolved, and is perceived differently by the galaxy at large.

The Sith likewise have evolved. The Rule of Two as changed because it didn't fit the vision of Darth Krayt. Just as Luke re-created the Jedi order anew, so Krayt created a new Sith order. There were changes in the past; why not changes now? Krayt is obviously concerned about his vision dying with him; Perhaps the Rule of One can't work without him. We'll see.

The Jedi of this time being too militaristic? You mean as opposed to the OLD Jedi Order that served as the generals in the Clone War for the Republic? Kol VALUED knowing the ways of war and past history gave him good rasons to do that. Shado Vao may be more aggressive than some other Jedi -- or not -- but I don't think we've seen anything that suggests he's miltaristic. The Imperial Knights are NOT in the Jedi Order; that's why they're called Imperial knights and not Imperial Jedi. I'm sure Luke would not agree with them ptting the Empire first, either. That's the point.

Is ther era we're depicting any gloomier than any era that is named "The Dark Times"? I understand your and other people wanting SW to be more fun and light but GL himself changed that with ESB -- which WAS dark and gloomy and ended with Luke losing a hand and Han frozen in carbonite, The Rebels were driven off their base on Hoth. It seems to me that the concept is VERY Star Wars. Just interpreted for today which is not the same world as when ANH first debuted. I'd suggest that the "

 

Having just read the issue I have to say that this is a hysterical example of assuming way too much.

We don't even know if Cade is going to hand the Jedi in! Last we saw they were all still in a speeder.

 

I personally enjoy the darker side of Star Wars. The effects and premise of ANH drew me in the darkness of TESB made me stay.

 

An In Universe argument to those who dislike the "gritty," "gloom and doom" feel of recent EU:

In DN, Han, Leia, and Luke are all yearning for those days, hoping to see, well, hope again. The galaxy is in a dark place, and it's not jsut the author's making the decision to move the galaxy that way. They've also made the characters very aware of it. In both trilogies, complacency is the norm until a Skywalker comes along to shake people into action. Couldn't Luke's Legacy be the continued struggle towards freedom, peace, justice, and happiness, with the Skywalker bloodline serving as a torch for the galaxy?

 

^^ That's the least we can ask, really, especially seeing as how all the evidence seems to point away from Cade just sitting back and allowing things to proceed normally...then again, I'm starting to suspect Charles is being facetious in protest.

Personally, I'm kind of wondering what would happen if Cade doesn't do anything to stop it, then changes his mind only to fail in saving Hosk from being taken...let's see, then: he'd have lost his father despite his attempts to save him, and now this Jedi...in case you're wondering, I tend to think Cade's the kind of guy that's gotta hit rock bottom before he turns his life around.

 

Of course you do.

By whom, exactly?

Crime, poverty, suicide, they all occur on an individual level for a variety of reasons, most of which can be addressed with some degree of effectiveness. War exists on another level entirely.

Ah yes, what's the point of it all?

 

If this Hosk guy ends up being handed over to the Sith, it would not be the biggest surprise if eventually, after Cade has turned to the light and become a good guy, Cade would face this Hosk, turned to the Dark Side by the Sith, in battle. And that Hosk would die, redeemed in the end by Cade or not. It is just the kind of thing that seems to happen often in SW.

 

Meh. Actually, at first I was just attempting to clarify Jmac's statement about the Jedi view of warfare. I responded to your post because I was surprised at your viewpoint. You don't find many people that say war = good, so I sought to examine the idea a bit more. You say that crime and suicide can be dealt with by means other than violent ones with some degree of effectiveness, which is what makes them different from war. If this were so, diplomats would not exist. As with crime, violence is sometimes a necessary last resort to deal, but it is not the end most smiled upon. Surely you'd rather successfully talk a man out of something than shoot him between the eyes.

You misunderstand. War is not positive. The ends that come of war may be, but war itself is generally held as a negative due to the suffering, pain, disenfranchisement, violence, etc. that make up war. In an ideal world, war and all the negatively connotated words it comes with would not exist. Unfortunately, it does, and what we hope for with each war is that, in the future, because of our efforts in fighting this war, the future will be a little brighter, the threat of future war and conflict a little bit lessened. We should not have wars simply so we can have heroes; a hero is a hero because of his actions when face with a circumstance. The postive - the hero - rises above and triumphs over the negative - war, battle, the enemy, evil, etc. When Theseus slew the Minotaur, he was a hero because the Minotaur, the labyrinth, the system of human sacrifice were all ills that he triumphed over and ended. We should not, then, make more Minotaurs, more labyrinths, simply because it allows for the chance that we'll get another Theseus. Yes?

Justification does not stop something from being unfortunate. The Jedi seek to avoid war, but partake in it when it becomes their task.

 

Indeed, war is killing, and unless you condone murders, it's not right.


The end doesn't justify the means, and it never will, despite the fact that sometimes there is no other option. But when there are other options and this one is taken, well that is a sad day indeed.

 

See, I don't agree that that's always true. Murder and killing are different things, IMO. Killing in self defense, for example, is not murder. A soldier killing legitimate enemy combatants is not murder. Going to war for a justifiable purpose when it is necessary is not, IMO, wrong, necessarily. Merely regrettable that things had to come to blows.

edit: Just read your edit, and I see your viewpoint better, now. I don't think we actually disagree.

 

A sadly incorrect definition most people have when it comes to war. Killing and murder are not the same thing, legally and morally. Heck, even the Bible makes the distinction between the two. It depends upon the context and the morality of the situation. It's not relative, but there are situations where killing is nesscisary to prevent further evil.

"The end doesn't justify the means, and it never will."

Of course it does at times, you lived in a world shaped by such ends and some have impacted the world for great positive change.

 

And, interestingly enough, that brings things full circle: the difference between killing and murder is what put Jacen where he is, and what's in contention about Cade right now.

 

Well Jon, I thank you for your response regarding the matter and I'll remain open to seeing what Cade does from this point on. BobaMatt and others have convinced me I've been somewhat premature in my reaction. Part of my problem is that I really love the Jedi Knighthood and get very defensive of them.

I think part of the mistake was reading Legacy 2# immediately after Knights of the Old Republic 6# in which the Jedi Masters Circle is utter scum while Zayne's fellow padawans are classic examples of "with friends like this, who needs enemies."

And as for "heroes" and "villains", don't get me wrong. I love Quinlan Vos and your writing all round. I love blurring the edges. I do think that ironically Quinlan's journey wouldn't have been nearly as powerful if not for Aalya Secura and the powerful moments of light to contrast against the darkness.

I also take note that I'm sure you'll use this opportunity to show the possibilities of Sith whom might not be all so bad and whatever the Imperial Knights are. I just think that its important to remember the appeal of light rather than murkiness. You don't need that explained to you since you've done plenty of good moments with that.

You're also right in that alot of my shock was the fact we didn't get to know Cade more than one issue before he's gone from trying to rescue his father to the situation we saw there. I admit that I overreacted.

 

I do wish I didn't have to reiterate my intentions like this...

To begin with, I never suggested that crime and all the rest can be dealt with via non-violent means. What DID say was that they're problems that, while effecting society as a whole (although poverty and suicide are generally symptomatic of other problems), they occur at the individual level, within that society. You can't lump war in their with all the rest because as a general rule it's an external, not internal problem. While a country may be able to take more or less effective steps towards combatting its internal problems, the only real influence it can bring to bear against external ones is the assurance that war will be waged to defend its interests, and even then that might not deter potential enemies.

That juxtaposition of positive and negative effects would seem to make it a decidedly neutral phenomonon, as I've argued.

That's not a choice we're free to make. In a perfect world, perhaps, but in this mortal life, for better or worse, only the dead have seen the end of war.

 

It's not Cade that bothers me at all. He's really incidental, at this point, to the story. He was a child when things came crashing down. He struggled to survive. He does what he has to do.

My disgust is really that there are *10,000* SITH??????? The EMPIRE is back? And evil as hell again, too.

I mean, Luke and his Jedi failed. They lost. If there's one Sith, the Jedi are threatened. In Legacy, there's more Sith and they rule the galaxy. It may as well be three days after ROTS, to the 100th power. A Sith sits on the throne and rules the galaxy. The Jedi are completely torn down and shattered.

Nothing anyone ever did mattered at all. Every single thing Luke and Leia and their kids suffered, everything they ever were dedicated to, doesn't matter.

It's like watching City of Angels. He gave up eternity for no reason. His reason died in his arms after 8 hours. His existence is emptiness.

That's how Legacy makes me feel about all the time and dedication I have put into Star Wars, waiting for the hopeful future that never will come. This story is basically scumbag Jacen's legacy of moral reletavism.

 

The fact that there are Sith doesn't mean Luke failed, Luke's purpose was not to kill the Sith or to destroy them, it was to rebuild the Jedi order, and that was achieved.


Damn, people are touchy because there are Sith after ROTJ.

 

Word.

 

I think it's the 10,000 Sith that's got the others mad. It angers me, too.

Oh, count me in as a linear reader. Precisely how the post-ROTJ should've been. We don't need the NR in mortal danger all the time. Smaller stories, more personal stories work just fine. 'Last One Standing' anyone?

 

But Luke acheived his destiny he redeemed Anakin and they destroyed the Empire that can never be taken away from him. Then for good measure he led the Jedi Order through the Vong war while making sure most of his charges didn't fall to the Dark Side.
As someone said earlier Luke will be a beacon for hope and freedom that will be his legacy. Although possibly a yearly scan of Korriban might have solved the legacy problem earlier.

 

Peace doesn't sell.

And 10,000 isn't as big a number as you think



Think of it like this:

Remember LOTR TTT? The Battle at Helm's deep, the army that attacked was composed of around 10,000 Uruk-Hai.


See there? Not so big.

 

Except the Uruk-Hai, as utterly bad@$$ as they were, couldn't control the Dark Side of the Force and were limited to one planet.

And with one exception, every single person I know in RL who reads the UE dropped SW before they even hit Traitor. So war doesn't sell too hotly either.

 

The Uruk Hia were mindless creatures, not force users.

 

Again, I've more than established that I agree that, for better or worse, war is a part of this mortal coil. Efforts are constantly made internationally and organizationally to avoid war, because it's not something people like. Sane leaders don't send their men to kill other men, or perhaps die at the hands of other men, lightly, because it's not something anyone really wants. Ideally, it's a last resort, hopefully in a series of less aggressive resorts. If war was a completely external problem that no one had any choice in, then diplomats, negotiators, the UN, balance of power, mutually assured destruction, nuclear supremacy...they're all just so many useless concepts. There's a reason that the Jedi are primarily peacekeepers and diplomats, while still carrying lightsabers.

Nelanisghost: They didn't fail. They made a better galaxy. The governments of Legacy's time are not the Empire of old, and the Sith are quite different as well. They acheived what they achieved to the best of their abilities, bringing down Palpatine, reestablishing the Jedi, striking peace with the remains of the Empire of Old...

Sauron18: Why does the number bother you?