PT Analysis of Mace Windu's plan to overthrow Palpatine

This does not make sense to me. The only way a protagonist can be considered well written is if he or she never made a mistake or was not capable of being deceived? Or that the main reason the PT wasn't well written, because most of the protagonists were more than capable of making mistakes or doing the wrong thing?

I find this mentality frustrating. I really do.

 

I'm not talking about characters, I'm talking about the narrative. In order for Palpatine to win, everyone around him has to toss common sense out the window. This is weak writing. Whenever characters stop being able to use basic common sense just so the author can get his plot to work, that's not a good story.

I'm not saying characters can't be flawed, but when all of them have to be extremely flawed to the point of no longer reflecting an adult of moderate intelligence just so the plot can go in the way that the writer needs it to go, that's a pretty terrible story.

 

No, a character can be flawed and make mistakes and still be written well.
Tony Stark was flawed and made mistakes and was written quite well.
Luke was flawed and made mistakes and was written quite well.
Kirk in ST6 was flawed and could not see past his own hate. Spock too could not really see what Valeris was about, he was arrogant. Again good writing. Even if Shatner did not agree that his character should be this hate-full against the Klingons.

Writing "perfect" characters can lead to problems. They have it too easy, are never challenged, are boring or unrealistic. They can come across as a type of character that I won't say the name of as it has been used in less than nice ways.

What is not good writing when you bend the character to serve the plot.
If a person has been presented as a pacifist and never uses guns but suddenly goes all Rambo just because the plot needs it.
Or a character that has been presented as caring for all people and being very much against bigotry for no reason decides to to view a whole group of people as scum and unworthy to live.
Or when characters have been written to be of normal intelligence suddenly have to hold massive Idiot Balls just so that the plot can move on.

Characters can be flawed, they can change and evolve but trying to be consistent and show the development of the characters, that is a sign of good writing. Having the characters change suddenly or be very different just because, that is often not good writing.
Ex Luke in TLJ, I did not find that the film gave a good enough reason as to why he was suddenly so different. You want to change Luke this much, put in the effort and show that. Don't have him be different cause reasons.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

I will agree with you about Luke in TLJ.

 

I think it is pretty clear that we are meant to see Mace's considering killing Palpatine, if Palpatine has truly surrendered, as something that is wrong -- probably wrong even if he is correct that there is no way Palpatine can be safely held. It's not a practical decision, it is a moral one, and one about what the Jedi stand for. I have always felt it is a mirror to the moment in ROTJ where Luke tosses his light saber away. That is, on some levels, a CRAZY move. He may not have a chance of defeating the Emperor even if he hangs onto his light saber, but he would seem to have ZERO chance without it. Luke goes "all in"...either Vader is going to turn back to the Light side (whether or not Luke knows about the "Chosen One" prophecy is another thing) or he won't. Luke's decision is what tips the scales, and Vader DOES turn away from the Dark Side. Purely speculative on my part, but I have always wondered if Anakin would have fallen if Mace had stepped back, turned his light saber off, and agreed to take Palpatine in. I Could see Palpatine frying Mace then (bad outcome for Mace) but Anakin then realizing what Palpatine really is and maybe NOT falling -- again, a mirror to the ROTJ scene.

 

RE: Luke. I don't think what Luke did was "calculated" in any way. That he had some plan, that he knew about the prophecy. Did Luke even know about Palpatine's Force Lightning? No hint of that in the films.
To me, he came close to the edge and stared into the abyss. He realized that if he kept going this way, he would fall and become like his father, a servant of evil. And Luke rejected that.
So that he tossed aside his weapon, that was not some plan "I'll do this and then when the Emperor is killing me, it will inspire my father to save me." It was more simple, Luke came very close to killing hate and while he did back away, he tossed aside his weapon to really show that. To not let that thought come back. He passed the test but what would happen now, that he did not know. Luke had no idea that the rebels had brought down the shield or much of anything going on outside.
Once Palpatine was killing him, then he pleaded with his father to help him. I don't think he had that as a plan.

RE: Anakin. Had Mace lowered his guard and Palpatine killed him. Anakin could feel bad, that he was in some way to blame here. He convinced Mace to lower his guard and Mace did and now he is dead.
What would Palpatine do? As long as he has Padme to dangle in front of Anakin, he would do just that.
And as long as Anakin can not let go of her, he is in danger of falling.
So Palpatine could simply say, "I and only I have the means to save your wife, choose! Either side with the Jedi that plotted to kill me, take over and watch your wife die. Or serve me and save her life."
Could Anakin make a choice that, as far as he thought, would lead to Padme's death? I don't know but I doubt it. His need for her to live is too strong. So I think he would have bent the knee to Palpatine.
So he would still have turned, but in slightly different circumstances.

RE: Was it right for Mace to try and kill Palpatine? Palpatine was not as weak as he pretended, it was an act.
But let's make it only Palpatine and Mace, no Anakin. And Palpatine had tried to kill Mace twice, he was faking weakness and Mace had a choice, lower his guard and try for an arrest or push for the kill.
Let's say that had Mace gone for the kill, he would have succeeded and if he lowered his guard, Palpatine would have killed him.
So either, Mace kills Palpatine, stops the Empire from being created, Order 66 does not happen, the DS is never built, Alderaan is not destroyed and all that. Or he tries for an arrest, is killed, order 66 happens, the Empire is formed, the DS is built and all that.
Which is more right, the more moral option? Do a lesser evil in order to prevent a greater evil? Or refuse and let a greater evil happen?
Sometimes all you have a a variety of bad options, no obviously good choice. Just bad ones and you have to pick the least bad one. And refusing to pick and not acting, that is in itself also an action.
Ex, the book and film, The Dead Zone. The main character "sees" that a person running for President will launch the nukes and start WW3, dooming the world. So he decides to murder him, to prevent this future.
He fails at killing him but due to what this guy did when being shot upon, his chance to become President is ruined and he will instead end his own life. Was that moral? Trying to kill someone for something they had not done yet? Should he just have let events play out and the world ends?

Mace certainly made mistakes, he should have warned the other Jedi and had more of a plan than rushing in, sword drawn.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

I like all of this.

One thing that rarely gets mentioned is that these aren't normal people. They are beings with extraordinary power. Even if Palpatine "surrenders" he is still a person who can shoot deadly electricity from his hands and choke people to death through telekinesis. I would argue that, when dealing with beings like this, there is no chance for surrender. If you have these powers, and you decide to start doing evil things, then you get the sword.

Now, if one wants to debate about what an "evil thing" is, that's fine. But I doubt anyone would state that what Palpatine had been doing for the past 13 years wasn't objectively evil.

 

It’s important to remember that Mace wasn’t trying to kill Palpatine from the start-he said he was under arrest. Of course he probably knew that wasn’t going to happen. But the plan was to just get rid of Palpatine before he more or less enshrined dictatorial power in his own hands.

That’s one thing ROTS makes very clear-Palpatine has out stayed his term, he is gaining ever more power, and the Jedi are really worried he won’t leave office once the war finally ends.

In hindsight the Jedi probably ought to have been ready for things to go haywire, but no one could have known Anakin would betray the order.

 

What Palpatine had been doing for the past 13 years wasn't objectively evil.

 

It would still be murder, no matter how one looks at it. I find it interesting how so many people come up with different reasons to murder a villain in cold blood . . . and pretend that it's not murder.

 

Murder means to kill someone unlawfully, as in illegally. We've already established that Palpatine (a force user) can choke people TO DEATH with telekinesis. And since Palpatine, at the moment Mace goes to strike him down, is still capable of said telekinesis that means Palpatine is still capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. Therefore, Mace can still legally kill him.

So nope, it's not murder.

 

You would think the Jedi would have some kind of plan for incarcerating dangerous dark siders. It's kind of what they do isn't it? Or is it just "kill them?" I know the Sith have been extinct, but maybe be prepared...and the Sith did return a few years earlier.

 

MACE WINDU: Is the Sith containment area still prepared?

KIT FISTO: That's where Ki-Adi Mundi has been keeping his hats.

MACE WINDU: Does he have a lot of hats?

KIT FISTO: He's got a lot of head.

 

It's still murder, unless the person is killing someone in self defense or in the defense of others. You're using Palpatine's moral compass as an excuse for him to be killed in cold blood. It's murder. Even Anakin eventually killed Palpatine to protect Luke.

Which is why I also find Yoda's deliberate attempt to seek out Palpatine and kill him very questionable.

Anakin had wiped out the very Tusken village that had kidnapped Shmi and tortured her to death for an entire month. Does that mean he has an excuse, considering what the Tuskens did to her?

 

As a former Military Police Officer (titled SECURITY FORCES) from the United States Air Force, there are three relevant circumstances that justify the use of deadly force.

1) INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE. When there is reasonable belief that a person(s) poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or others.

Palpatine just murdered three persons and has actively been attempting to murder a fourth.

2) SERIOUS OFFENSES AGAINST PERSONS. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense, one that involves imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm or injury, including the defense of other persons where deadly force is directed against the person threatening to commit the offense.

Palpatine had discarded his lightsaber, but is still capable at unleasing deadly lightning and choking someone to death with telekinesis.

3) ARREST OR APPREHENSION. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest or apprehend when there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a serious offense and there is imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or others.

At the time of making the arrest, Palpatine has murdered three people, attempted to murder a fourth, and still has the ability to kill due to said force lightning and telekinesis.

This is why I stated earlier...

If you are trying to arrest someone, they kill three people, and then refuse to drop their weapon (Palpatine cannot "drop" force lighting and telekinesis) then you can legally end their life. A person cannot surrender if they won't drop their weapon. A person cannot surrender if they can still shoot deadly force lightning and kill you with their mind.

So, this is the end of the """"debate"""" for me. You're trying to tell me that 2+2=5. I will not debate that, I will simply tell you that you are wrong.

 

What could Yoda have done at this point? Arrest Palpatine? The Republic was gone. It was now an Empire with him at the helm. To put this into WWII perspective, it’d be like arresting Stalin and holding him in the Kremlin. Where he controls everything including the courts. Think they’d just have a change of heart? No. They’d release him within a day.

By the time Yoda confronted him, this was war. An attempt to save the Republic from a hostile group that just took it over. A hostile group that has control of the legal system so holding him for trial would’ve been absolutely out of the question.

We have an entire thread dedicated to Anakin’s slaughter of the Tuskens, btw.

 

Is it murder?
Say you are a cop and you and three colleagues are told to arrest a terrorist. Said terrorist has a nuke hidden in some city and if it blows, it would kill millions.
You arrive, ID yourself and try to arrest the terrorist. He refuses, pulls a gun, kills your three partners and tries to kill you. After a fight, you manage to disarm him. You try, again, to arrest him but he won't hear of it and gets another weapon and tries, again, to kill you. After another fight, you get him to drop that gun as well.
The terrorist is lying on the ground but does not show his hands and is making sounds of weakness.
But you don't know if he is unarmed or not, if he is really weak or faking it, he could be going for another weapon. And if you lower your guard and the terrorist has another gun and kills you, he will also likely detonate the nuke, killing loads of people.
Would it really be murder to shoot the terrorist?

Since murder is a legal term, would a court call it murder?

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

You're still trying to justify murder. Even if Palpatine had means other than his lightsaber to cause harm, Mace was contemplating on killing him when he WAS DOING NOTHING. Mace was contemplating murder at a moment when Palpatine was doing nothing other than ranting. Yoda deliberately went to Palpatine's office with the intent to commit murder. Just because they're Jedi, characters that are considered the good guys, does not mean they're incapable of committing terrible acts.

Yes. You don't kill someone because they might have a hidden bomb or gun. As a species, we love finding excuses to commit violence against someone we don't like. Don't we? Even in fiction.

 

...see...

 

not that I disagree with your other points, but how can a person surrender an ability they possess? unlike a weapon Palpatine couldn't surrender any of his abilities. He could promise not to use them, but would that be enough?

(and yes I'm aware Palps didn't promise to not shoot lightning and continued to do so )

 

Removed - flaming/baiting/harassment. Banned. /heels

 

They can't. That's why force sensitive persons have to hold themselves to a higher standard.

 

Legal ≠ right.
If Mace wants to disarm Palpatine, he can do so, they same way Anakin disarmed Dooku in the beginning of the film. (Yes, loss of hands/arms means no more Force lightning. Because George Lucas said so (This is why Vader never does that trick)).
That would've been the compassionate way; the Jedi way. Disarm, apprehend, take to court. It is within his power to do it.

Instead, he goes for the kill, because he loses faith in the Republic.
As Queen Jamillia so astutely noted, the day we stop believing democracy can work is the day we lose it. Yes, Palpatine was in control of the system - or at least a large part of it - but if we abandon our core values to defeat the enemy, then what are we really fighting for? If we stoop to their level and fight fire with fire, then fire will prevail. We've already lost.

Choosing the quick and easy path is turning to the dark side. Doing the right thing, choosing compassion, is the harder choice. It will take longer to win, it will demand greater sacrifices, but in the end, it will lead to true victory. Light (or water) will prevail.
This is what Luke realized when he confronted Palpatine. Where the Jedi of old made the wrong choice, he made the right one. He stopped fighting and sacrificed himself for what he believed in. The ultimate act of compassion; the exact opposite of what a Sith would do.
And that's how the Jedi ultimately won.

The mirroring of these two scenarios is deliberate. In one trilogy, we are shown what not to do as Mace gives in to fear. In the other, we are shown the way of the Jedi as Luke overcomes fear and saves the day by choosing compassion.
In both cases, Anakin intervenes accordingly. He stops Mace because he fears losing Padmé. He stops Palpatine, thereby sacrificing his own life, out of compassion for Luke.

 

@Lulu Mars

Yes, the real argument is not one of legality. Though I would ask what is stopping Palpatine from force choking people to death? I would say it's not effective on other force users... but Dooku successfully chokes Obi-Wan so... Shrug.

 

Haha, good point!

Ultimately, they do have to kill Palpatine, of course. In hindsight, we all know he'd never stop being evil and is probably powerful (and manipulative) enough to get out of any prison. Most importantly, throwing him down that shaft was the only way for Anakin to stop him in that particular case, as Palpatine would've choked them both to death if he'd used Luke's lightsaber to cut off his hands (or thrown them down the shaft). For the sake of Luke, it was the compassionate thing to do.