main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

PT Were They Really Meant to Die On Geonosis?

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by Dark Ferus, Sep 4, 2019.

  1. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Yes but the third does not have to be Anakin in particular.
     
  2. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Sidious wanted a worthy successor, and his standards are very high. Only Anakin had enough potential. I doubt there was anyone else Sidious could brag to Yoda about becoming more powerful than either of them.

    Edit: I should change the wording of the third goal to "Train a powerful successor to bring glory to the Sith."
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  3. Jedi_Sith_Smuggler_Droid

    Jedi_Sith_Smuggler_Droid Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 13, 2014
    But does he really really want that??? That's the rules but it seems so totally unSith like for the master to actually want a successor. Is this the rule because it's like a law of nature that can't be stopped, but master is still trying. And Sidious has that crazy line to Yoda "Lord Vader will become more powerful than either of us." It's like Sidous has this fatherly pride.

    I would think a Sith Master wants the most powerful apprentice possible for helping implement their plans. But the Sith Master would always like to be so much more powerful that when the apprentice outlasts their usefulness, or a better apprentice appears, the master can dump the current apprentice for the new one. And the master is so powerful that if the apprentice ever makes a move at succession, the master can stop them dead.

    At the same time the apprentice is trying to stay useful as along as possible while at the same time hiding how powerful they really are so they can kill the master before the master recognizes they are powerful enough to do it.

    With Vader anyway, Sidious seems to think he's got the real deal. It's also interesting the way Sidious calls Vader 'my friend'. Not sure we see that with Maul or Dooku. Definately dont' see it with Luke on the Death Star II.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019
  4. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Sidious isn't immortal; he will die eventually regardless of what kind of apprentice he has. I think he figured that it's worth sacrificing a few years of his lifespan to get a powerful successor to carry on his legacy and bring glory to the Sith Order which Sidious is so devoted to. Notice how just before Order 66, Sidious doesn't say "Now I will rule the galaxy," but rather "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy." He is one with the Sith Order.
    We don't know if previous Sith masters were this passionate about their religion though. I'm just talking about Sidious specifically.
     
  5. DARTHLINK

    DARTHLINK Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 24, 2005
    He probably held some slimmer of affection for Vader considering he practically raised him (he would’ve considered Obi-Wan just another Jedi fool brainwashing the kid.)
     
    lord_sidious_ likes this.
  6. Dark Ferus

    Dark Ferus Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 29, 2016
    I wouldn’t take it that far, personally. He was glad to have Luke kill and replace him, and it seems that he only preserved Vader’s life because he still had used for him.

    Palpatine laughed as Vader mourned Padme’s loss, and in the comics, immediately blasted him with lightning.
     
    Iron_lord likes this.
  7. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Because to Sidious, the Sith Order is more important than personal feelings. Luke makes a better successor than Vader. It doesn't mean the feelings don't exist; it means they need to make way for other things.
     
  8. BlackRanger

    BlackRanger Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Apr 14, 2018
    Are you saying that a flaw in Palpatine's philosophy is his lack of attachment?
     
  9. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    I guess. His passion isn't directed towards people, but to his religion. He probably sees attachment as a useless distraction.
     
    DARTHLINK likes this.
  10. DARTHLINK

    DARTHLINK Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 24, 2005
    ^ Which is, ironically, one of the core Jedi tenants: letting go of attachments.

    Doublely ironic is that Vader’s attachment to Luke is what drove him to kill Palpatine.
     
    Emperor Ferus likes this.
  11. Dark Ferus

    Dark Ferus Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Jul 29, 2016
    I don’t think any Jedi, not even Yoda and Mace, follows the attachment rule to the t. It’s too contradictory and impossible for anyone.
     
  12. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
    No. Vader's compassion, not attachment. I don't understand why people continue to mix the two up when they don't mean the same thing at all. The Jedi tenets forbid attachments and demand compassion. Vader was willing to die to save his son. If he's willing to die, he's willing to let go of everything, including his own life, to do what's right. If he's willing to let go, then he's not attached to anything. He's compassionate, following the Jedi way. Hence Return of the Jedi.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  13. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    The Jedi way is about choosing the greater love for everyone (compassion) over love for individuals (attachment). So if, say, Vader sacrifices Luke because it somehow saves the galaxy, then that is compassion.
    What Vader did was choose his son's life (attachment) over his own life. That's just basic human nature. Most parents, regardless of their moral standards, would instinctively choose their children over themselves.

    At the time of ROTS, if there was an option for Anakin to choose either his own life or Padme's, I'm pretty sure he would choose Padme. But those just weren't the options set up for him.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    Sith Lord 2015 likes this.
  14. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
    No, that's not what the concepts mean at all. Everyone is an individual. The Jedi way is about compassion over attachment. Attachment is selfishness, it's the inability to accept and let go. It's about wanting or keeping things for your sake. Compassion is selflessness, is caring about others over yourself.

    Anakin wanted to "save" Padmé out of passion and attachment, not out of compassion. As he admits and reasons, he can't live without her.

    Anakin saved Luke out of compassion, thus being willing to give up his life (ie: to let go) for his sake.

    This is layed out in the movies so explicitly that I'm always baffled when people mix the concepts up.

    "Attachment is forbidden. Possession is forbidden. Compassion, which I would define as unconditional love, is central to a Jedi's life. So you might say that we are encouraged to love."

    "The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inwards, only about themselves." (passion, greed, attachment)

    "The Jedi are selfess. They only care about others." (compassion, selflessness)

    This is shown more subtletly during Shmi's funeral:

    "I know wherever you are it's become a better place. You were the most loving partner a man could ever have. Goodbye, my darling wife." (focuses on Shmi, is selfless, able to let go)

    "I wasn't strong enough to save you, Mom. I wasn't strong enough. But I promise I won't fail again. I miss you so much." (focuses on himself, is selfish, unable to let go)
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
  15. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    His desire to save Padme and Luke are the same. He's trying to save someone close to him, someone he loves. The only difference is the side effect (betray the Jedi, sacrifice his own life) of saving them. In both cases, he decided that saving their life is worth the side effects. But the way the situations are set up (i.e. different side effects) makes his choice bad in the first case and good in the second.
    Like I said, if *somehow* Vader's choices were to either save Luke or save the galaxy, then the good thing to do is to choose the greater love for everyone (compassion) over his personal love for his son (attachment). This would be a parallel to the situation in ROTS that would allow us to compare his choices. What we actually see is not a parallel, but a totally different situation. Trying to apply the same concepts (attachment, compassion) to compare two totally different situations has to be a logical fallacy of some sort (I just don't know if there's a proper term for it).

    I don't see how his comment during Shmi's funeral shows selfishness. He doesn't even live with her. He's sad because of her death and suffering, not because he no longer has a mother to take care of him.
     
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2019
    Sith Lord 2015 likes this.
  16. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
    No, it's not. His desire to save Padmé is for selfish reasons. Not only was he acting on the fear of something that wasn't a reality, he was doing it because he wanted her to be with him forever. He acted on fear and out of greed.

    "Just help me save Padmé's life. I can't live without her."

    That's not the case with Luke. Luke was actually being killed in front of him, and he's willing to die to save his son. It's pure selflessness.

    Again, the difference is hinted at time and time again throughout the movies.

    "You should be very proud of your son. He gives without any thought of reward."

    "He knows nothing of greed."

    That's how he should act.

    That doesn't mean Anakin wouldn't be willing to die to save Padmé (or somebody else), if something like that happened. He probably would, but that's beside the point. The issue is what he decided to do for selfishness, for the inability to let go and be selfless, like the Jedi he should be.
     
  17. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    He isn't sad because of her suffering. Shmi isn't suffering anymore. Cliegg realizes that, which is why he's able to appreciate the love they shared while she was alive and let her go. Anakin isn't able to realize that, which is why he fixates on his own anger and frustration at being unable to save her, even though it won't and can't change anything about what happened. Anakin creates his own suffering by being unable to let go of his mother. That's the only suffering that now exists as a result of this situation: suffering born of attachment.
     
  18. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    The reward (for throwing Sidious down the shaft) is that his son gets to live. Most people would find that a bigger reward that themselves surviving.

    I think I see what you're saying with Padme. There are two rewards for cutting off Mace's arm (or at least that's what he believes): his wife gets to live, AND he can live with his wife. If he was motivated by the first reward, then it is an act of compassion, as he is thinking about her. If he was motivated by the second reward, then it is attachment, because it is about his own happiness that comes from her presence. You believe his primary motivation is the second reward (as evidenced by his line to Sidious), therefore his decision is selfish.

    I don't think this distinction is really meaningful though. The two rewards come hand in hand, and I honestly think he cares about both. He himself might not even know which one is more important. And it's not really the problem in ROTS. Imagine an alternative situation where everything else is the same, but Anakin has a terminal illness and will die in two or three days. If he still decides to cut off Mace's arm (I do think he would), then his motivation is so that Padme gets to live. By your description of compassion vs. attachment, I believe this would count as acting out of compassion. However, it still leads to the same bad outcomes as the actual movie, so it's clearly selfish...which is confusing.

    It's much easier to analyze choices in terms of outcomes, both motivating outcomes (i.e. Padme and Luke's survival) and side effect outcomes. His action in ROTS is bad because he is hurting more people (bad side effect outcome) to save one person he personally cares about (motivating outcome). His action in ROTJ is good because his son gets to live (motivating outcome) and the galaxy is freed (good side effect outcome).

    But she suffered and is dead. Grief about this is not a sign of selfishness.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2019
    Sith Lord 2015 likes this.
  19. DARTHLINK

    DARTHLINK Force Ghost star 4

    Registered:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Yes, grief is natural. I don’t think we’re faulting Anakin for grieving that his mom died.

    It’s that he’s unable to let go after she died and is no longer suffering. He’s using her death as a motivation to find a way to cheat death. “I’ll even learn how to stop people from dying!”

    I lost two dogs earlier this year. One to cancer, and the other to old-age. I spent 12-14 years with them, loved every moment of it. Do I miss them? Yes. Do I mourn them? Yes. Do I accept that they’re gone and move on? Absolutely.
     
  20. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Excessive grief which you fixate on and use as justification to inflict suffering on countless others absolutely is selfish.

    Cliegg is surely sad that Shmi is dead, but look at what he says at her funeral. Everything he says is positive. He focuses on the good, because he knows there's nothing to be done about the bad. Shmi has passed on, and that can't be changed. He focuses on the fact that Shmi is at peace, remembers what a loving person she was, and then says goodbye. He focuses on Shmi, not himself. He mourns, such as it is, in a healthy way.

    But look at what Anakin says. Everything he says is about himself and his own feelings. He reprimands himself for not being strong enough, makes an impossible promise, and focuses on how much he misses her. Nothing he says has anything to do with Shmi or her suffering. Shmi's suffering doesn't exist anymore. It happened in the past, and there's absolutely no trace of it here in the present, because Shmi has become one with the Force. She is totally at peace. The only person here who is suffering is Anakin, and it's a suffering of his own creation. Anakin could make a choice to be like Cliegg, and to deal with his mother's death in a healthy way which honors her life, but instead he chooses to indulge his own feelings of inadequacy, failure, resentment, and longing. And he blames it all on others. He blames the Sand People for being "animals," he blames Obi-Wan for "holding him back," he blames life for not being "fair." Instead of accepting the world as it is he craves the power to remake it in his own image. Anakin is being selfish.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2019
  21. sith_rising

    sith_rising Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Heaving about Disney's "What if" show coming out, maybe someday we'll have some Star Wars "What if" episodes on Disney+, like the old Infinities comics. Kenobi joining Dooku on Geonosis has always been a huge interest for me.
     
  22. lord_sidious_

    lord_sidious_ Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Anakin is not grieving at the expense of Shmi. In fact he feels guilty for not being able to help her.
    Inflicting suffering on others is selfish, but that doesn't make the grief itself selfish. That almost like saying, I stomped on a bunch of ants on my way to school today, therefore it was cruel of me to go to school.
     
    Sith Lord 2015 likes this.
  23. Sith Lord 2015

    Sith Lord 2015 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 2015
    False! Attachment and the inability to "let go", whatever that means", is NOT selfish. Why do people keep confusing that? Same thing with grief. For some people grief can last a LONG time. It's not a flaw but part of one's personality. Are you now trying to tell us that having a personality and dealing with grief and attachment in different ways is wrong and against some outdated Jedi dogma? No thanks! I prefer the SITH, they are at least honest about their feelings and desires.
     
  24. Alexrd

    Alexrd Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Yes, it is.

    Why are you pretending that personalities are flawless and immutable?

    Why are you pretending that clinging to attachments (specially for a long time) and not being able to let go should be indulged?

    Honest?!

    Please, go ahead. Indulge your passions and desires, cling to your attachments and greed, advocate moral relativism, follow the easy and seductive path. Nobody is stopping you from missing the moral, spiritual and philosophical point of the story.
     
    The_Phantom_Calamari likes this.
  25. Sith Lord 2015

    Sith Lord 2015 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 30, 2015
    YES
    I will. A fictional story will not impose moral values on me, even if it's George Lucas trying to do it. I have my own family values, and will remain attached to my loved ones for how long as I see fit. Nobody will tell me how wrong I am. I'm glad not to be a robot, and will hold on to my very flawed HUMAN emotions and attachments, regardless of any rigid inhumane utopian "code" that tries to suppress my humanity, thank you very much!
    "GREED"?????? Nice how some people interpret things/sins/flaws into simple human emotions. I can absolutely 100% assure you that I am not greedy in any way. In fact I manage to survive on only very basic needs. I don't even own a car. But I do value my so essentially "evil" attachments to my loved ones. YES, I am attached, and will always be. This is me, this is my personality. Neither George nor anyone else will ever talk me out of it, or convince me that it's a way to the "dark side". I am human and have human flaws. I am in no way ashamed of that.