There's a line in KotOR II where HK-47 refers to Jedi as "pseudo-pacifists," and the more I think about it, the more I think the droid was right. The Jedi code states that a Jedi will use the Force only for knowledge and defense, never for aggression or personal gain.

This is true only if we interpret "defense" in the absolute broadest possible sense. We routinely see Jedi on the offensive, leading attacks, commanding armies, and, most certainly, killing without offering the opportunity to surrender and repent, both in the flicks and in the EU. Jedi Shadows exist in large part to grant the Council first strike capability - to expressly strike the first blow of a conflict.

Jedi, in other words, are "aggressive" with their use of the Force quite frequently, so it seems to me that the "defense" aspect of their code is either something they simply pay lip service to, or else is interpreted so broadly as to almost be meaningless, no?

The jedi code states that, yes. no one ever said jedi were good at following that code.

that's why im a sith. I don't have to be a hypocrite to go on the offensive.

additionally, they can technically get away with mass murder via a loophole called "preventative defense."

Jedi are the "Guardians of peace and justice for the republic". A guardian can use force and will use force when what he guards is under attack. They are not only allowed defend themself, they also allowed to defend the republic and and those in need.

It is Jedi Knight, not Jedi Monk (even if they are a monastic order). The duties of a knight were to defend the weak and to follow his king/overlord in war. The Jedi are most likely no pseudo-pacifists and certainly no pacifists. They don't even claim to be pacifists. HK-47 just doesn't like that they try to find peaceful solutions if possible.

The jedi code states that, yes. no one ever said jedi were good at following that code.

 

that's why im a sith. I don't have to be a hypocrite to go on the offensive.

 

additionally, they can technically get away with mass murder via a loophole called "preventative defense."

I am Jedi and I don't have to be hypocrite to use offensive tactics either. So either you were fooled by the "Jedi are hypocrites"-Sith-propaganda, or it is not offense what you like, but starting wars at your whim.

And I know only one example about the Jedi commiting mass murder. At the end of the First Great Schism. They didn't kill the Dark Jedi who became Sith, they only exiled them. And the mass murder at the end of the Great Hyperspace War: That weren't Jedi, that were Republic Military.

But you as a Sith should have no problem with mass murder, I think.

There's a line in KotOR II where HK-47 refers to Jedi as "pseudo-pacifists," and the more I think about it, the more I think the droid was right. The Jedi code states that a Jedi will use the Force only for knowledge and defense, never for aggression or personal gain.

 

This is true only if we interpret "defense" in the absolute broadest possible sense. We routinely see Jedi on the offensive, leading attacks, commanding armies, and, most certainly, killing without offering the opportunity to surrender and repent, both in the flicks and in the EU. Jedi Shadows exist in large part to grant the Council first strike capability - to expressly strike the first blow of a conflict.

Those who cross the line between being guardians of the Republic (which I do think presents problems for them the more corrupted the Republic itself becomes) and savagely hunting down those who pose no real threat, or showing no compassion for innocent lives sacrificed in war. Those who cross this line tend not to last as Jedi. It's not about whether you fight, but how you fight. There were certainly Jedi who rejected the idea of even stepping foot on a battlefield, but it comes down to the question of whether to refuse to fight until you are personally threatened, or to fight in order to protect innocents as is your sworn duty.

Jedi often give opponents a chance to surrender in personal combat. However, when you're facing a legion of opponents on a battlefield, you aren't going to be able to stop and ask each one personally to surrender. Whether Jedi should, then, even be on a battlefield is something that the Order itself has debated many times, but sometimes it was necessary to protect innocent people. Defence does not imply only self-defence, nor does it mean waiting to be shot at by someone walking toward you with a gun pointed at your head.

Jedi, in other words, are "aggressive" with their use of the Force quite frequently, so it seems to me that the "defense" aspect of their code is either something they simply pay lip service to, or else is interpreted so broadly as to almost be meaningless, no?

Jedi who follow the Code do not use the force as a weapon, but more as a shield than anything. You can see it in their Force techniques which are more defencive than aggressive, anger-fueled techniques such as Force lightning or Force-choke.

You're not looking at the bigger picture. The Jedi are defending the known galaxy from the Imperial invasion (sorry that's the story). Which was in most part individually governed, or governed by the Republic. So, any time a Jedi acts against the Imperial forces in one of these systems - it is in defense of that system. Do you really think the Jedi would attack the Sith if they were more into gardening than destroying, and enslaving everything in the Galaxy? I have never seen a Jedi use the force for personal gain, and remain true to the order.

Stop trying to justify the Sith. I play a Sith, and I'm full dark side. I'm not a care bear that tries to pass the buck on the Jedi Order. I'm proud to be relentless.

BE A MAN. GET REAL.

Dont forget, originally, the sith were a species, and the jedi let it get as bad as it did. this whole game could have been avoided by simply commitng genocide on the natives of korriban when they discovered how talented the sith were in the dark side, but noooooo.

and i never tried to pass the buck.

i just revel in genocide instead of hiding behind hypocrisy.

Dont forget, originally, the sith were a species, and the jedi let it get as bad as it did. this whole game could have been avoided by simply commitng genocide on the natives of korriban when they discovered how talented the sith were in the dark side, but noooooo.

 

and i never tried to pass the buck.

 

i just revel in genocide instead of hiding behind hypocrisy.

The Republic did exactly that but some Sith escaped, the primary group being the building blocks for this Sith Empire.

Dont forget, originally, the sith were a species, and the jedi let it get as bad as it did. this whole game could have been avoided by simply commitng genocide on the natives of korriban when they discovered how talented the sith were in the dark side, but noooooo.

 

and i never tried to pass the buck.

 

i just revel in genocide instead of hiding behind hypocrisy.

Yet, did the Jedi commit genocide on the Sith species because they were talented in the dark side of the force? No.

The Sith draw their power from anger, and the suffering of others. You may not see how wrong that is if you are the one causing the suffering.

If you don't understand that then you do not understand the teachings of the dark side, and therefore you are not a true Sith.

The Republic did exactly that but some Sith escaped, the primary group being the building blocks for this Sith Empire.

I respectfully disagree. That's not exactly the whole story.

Couple of mistakes here. I'll outline them the best that I can.

There's a line in KotOR II where HK-47 refers to Jedi as "pseudo-pacifists," and the more I think about it, the more I think the droid was right. The Jedi code states that a Jedi will use the Force only for knowledge and defense, never for aggression or personal gain.

There are 2 things wrong with this particular paragraph:

1. The Jedi aren't "pseudo-pacifists" the Jedi aren't pacifists at all. There has never been a depiction of Jedi being unwilling to fight. In fact fighting is actually at the core of their teachings, which is why the symbol of the Jedi Order is the lightsaber. The Jedi don't like to fight to fight to kill or injure, but combat tournaments are the number one way Padawans are chosen and while the Jedi don't LIKE to kill or injure, they absolutely will if they feel it is needed.

Pacifists aren't people who don't like to fight, they are people who refuse to ever fight. So this is, like so many other examples, simply a spot where HK-47 doesn't know what he is talking about. The other one being how wrong he is about ways to kill Jedi, I can make a whole thread of why those ideas are rather silly.

2. The Jedi Code doesn't state that. Yoda said that... Also you are taking Yoda literally when you shouldn't.

The Jedi Code is simple:

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

What Yoda said was accurate, unless you are trying to take the statement literally. A Jedi doesn't use the Force to attack (as in attack someone outside of the defense of oneself or another) but when they are defending (themselves or someone else) it is perfectly fine. If an enemy is going to kill someone it is perfectly acceptable to attack that enemy to protect the person they were going to kill, to defend them.

This is true only if we interpret "defense" in the absolute broadest possible sense. We routinely see Jedi on the offensive, leading attacks, commanding armies, and, most certainly, killing without offering the opportunity to surrender and repent, both in the flicks and in the EU. Jedi Shadows exist in large part to grant the Council first strike capability - to expressly strike the first blow of a conflict.

 

Jedi, in other words, are "aggressive" with their use of the Force quite frequently, so it seems to me that the "defense" aspect of their code is either something they simply pay lip service to, or else is interpreted so broadly as to almost be meaningless, no?

It isn't so much that is is so broadly that it isn't meaningless. It has meaning. It literally means that a Jedi won't attack someone who isn't planning to, or partaking in the act of, directly harming someone else.

For example:

The Jedi won't attack a peaceful planet simply because they want to take that planet as territory.

The Jedi won't attack a wandering tribe unless that tribe is planning on hurting or killing someone.

Also... Remember... It isn't part of the Jedi Code.

Couple of mistakes here. I'll outline them the best that I can.

 

 

 

There are 2 things wrong with this particular paragraph:

 

1. The Jedi aren't "pseudo-pacifists" the Jedi aren't pacifists at all. There has never been a depiction of Jedi being unwilling to fight. In fact fighting is actually at the core of their teachings, which is why the symbol of the Jedi Order is the lightsaber. The Jedi don't like to fight to fight to kill or injure, but combat tournaments are the number one way Padawans are chosen and while the Jedi don't LIKE to kill or injure, they absolutely will if they feel it is needed.

 

Pacifists aren't people who don't like to fight, they are people who refuse to ever fight. So this is, like so many other examples, simply a spot where HK-47 doesn't know what he is talking about. The other one being how wrong he is about ways to kill Jedi, I can make a whole thread of why those ideas are rather silly.

 

2. The Jedi Code doesn't state that. Yoda said that... Also you are taking Yoda literally when you shouldn't.

 

The Jedi Code is simple:

 

There is no emotion, there is peace.

There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.

There is no passion, there is serenity.

There is no chaos, there is harmony.

There is no death, there is the Force.

 

What Yoda said was accurate, unless you are trying to take the statement literally. A Jedi doesn't use the Force to attack (as in attack someone outside of the defense of oneself or another) but when they are defending (themselves or someone else) it is perfectly fine. If an enemy is going to kill someone it is perfectly acceptable to attack that enemy to protect the person they were going to kill, to defend them.

 

 

 

It isn't so much that is is so broadly that it isn't meaningless. It has meaning. It literally means that a Jedi won't attack someone who isn't planning to, or partaking in the act of, directly harming someone else.

 

For example:

 

The Jedi won't attack a peaceful planet simply because they want to take that planet as territory.

The Jedi won't attack a wandering tribe unless that tribe is planning on hurting or killing someone.

 

Also... Remember... It isn't part of the Jedi Code.

It's part of some versions of the Jedi code, which has been nothing if not a mutable object over time, just like the Order itself.

And, as stated above, it does in fact lose its meaning if the definition of "defense" is expanded to include everything up to, "Well, we're going to attack them first, because we're pretty sure they're going to attack us at some point."

It's part of some versions of the Jedi code, which has been nothing if not a mutable object over time, just like the Order itself.

 

And, as stated above, it does in fact lose its meaning if the definition of "defense" is expanded to include everything up to, "Well, we're going to attack them first, because we're pretty sure they're going to attack us at some point."

No Jedi in canon has *ever* used that as a justification though, and no version of the Code ever contained those words.

Here is another example:

A Jedi has to accept an enemy's surrender. As it has been said in canon, "Jedi don't execute prisoners." which is part of their creed of not attacking. Once an enemy is beaten the Jedi Order backs off. The only person to ever claim otherwise was Gnost Dural about the Jedi's actions during the GHW which are majorly in contention.

(In fact in an interview with BioWare I conducted for AAJ BioWare straight admits that Dural is working from incomplete and sometimes incorrect information.)

For example.

When the Jedi defeated the Dark Jedi who would later become the Sith at the end of the 100 Years of Darkness. The Jedi asked the Republic to spare them and instead only exile them because they were defeated and no longer a threat.

In the GHW comics we know for a fact that the Jedi even gave Naga Sadow the butcher himself a chance to surrender and we know that the Sith refused to surrender and instead resorted to suicide bombings against the Republic.

(Gnost Dural says the Republic committed Genocide... Gnost Dural is also very wrong and a terrible historian.)

Every Jedi combat we have ever seen every time the Jedi give the enemy a chance to surrender.

Heck... LUKE SKYWALKER who was "supposedly" skirting the Dark Side in Episode 6 even offered Jabba the Hutt multiple chances to surrender.

1. "Never the less, I am taking Captain Solo and the Wookiee with me. You can either profit from this, or be destroyed, it is your choice but I warn you not to underestimate my power."

2. "Jabba... This is your last chance... Free us... Or die."

The entire point of the throne room scene of Luke vs Vader was to show that Luke wouldn't kill a defeated opponent.

"No. Your plan has failed your highness. I am a Jedi... Like my father before me."

There certainly is meaning. Just because the line doesn't hinder them as overtly as you would like doesn't make it meaningless.

No Jedi in canon has *ever* used that as a justification though, and no version of the Code ever contained those words.

 

Here is another example:

 

A Jedi has to accept an enemy's surrender. As it has been said in canon, "Jedi don't execute prisoners." which is part of their creed of not attacking. Once an enemy is beaten the Jedi Order backs off. The only person to ever claim otherwise was Gnost Dural about the Jedi's actions during the GHW which are majorly in contention.

 

(In fact in an interview with BioWare I conducted for AAJ BioWare straight admits that Dural is working from incomplete and sometimes incorrect information.)

 

For example.

 

When the Jedi defeated the Dark Jedi who would later become the Sith at the end of the 100 Years of Darkness. The Jedi asked the Republic to spare them and instead only exile them because they were defeated and no longer a threat.

 

In the GHW comics we know for a fact that the Jedi even gave Naga Sadow the butcher himself a chance to surrender and we know that the Sith refused to surrender and instead resorted to suicide bombings against the Republic.

 

(Gnost Dural says the Republic committed Genocide... Gnost Dural is also very wrong and a terrible historian.)

 

Every Jedi combat we have ever seen every time the Jedi give the enemy a chance to surrender.

 

Heck... LUKE SKYWALKER who was "supposedly" skirting the Dark Side in Episode 6 even offered Jabba the Hutt multiple chances to surrender.

 

1. "Never the less, I am taking Captain Solo and the Wookiee with me. You can either profit from this, or be destroyed, it is your choice but I warn you not to underestimate my power."

 

2. "Jabba... This is your last chance... Free us... Or die."

 

The entire point of the throne room scene of Luke vs Vader was to show that Luke wouldn't kill a defeated opponent.

 

"No. Your plan has failed your highness. I am a Jedi... Like my father before me."

 

There certainly is meaning. Just because the line doesn't hinder them as overtly as you would like doesn't make it meaningless.

There's a problem with the above.

It's patently untrue. There are countless examples from the movies alone of the Jedi never offering their opponent a chance to surrender. Darth Maul was never given the opportunity, just to name one example. And Mace Windu was certainly more than willing to kill a defeated Sidious.

I predict a "no true Scotsman"-style response.

There's a problem with the above.

 

It's patently untrue. There are countless examples from the movies alone of the Jedi never offering their opponent a chance to surrender. Darth Maul was never given the opportunity, just to name one example. And Mace Windu was certainly more than willing to kill a defeated Sidious.

 

I predict a "no true Scotsman"-style response.

You are thinking in a fallacy manner.

No Jedi is going to, nor are they expected to, offer every single enemy a chance to surrender individually they aren't supposed to sit back and let an enemy try to kill them and politely offer surrender. Generally if you are actively trying to kill the Jedi then they don't have to offer surrender.

Darth Maul attacked the Jedi. Once you directly attack the Jedi that is paramount to saying, "I am not going to surrender." Effectively Maul never got the "surrender" speech because he initially attacked the Jedi. Usually the surrender comes before an enemy attacks or after an enemy has been rendered a non-threat.

In the case of Sidious, Sidious wasn't defeated and Windu knew that. Windu knew that Sidious had enough power (political and otherwise) to not be "defeated" at all. Also, note, that Sidious was still trying to kill Mace at the same time Mace was overpowering him. Sidious did not surrender nor was he a prisoner.

The Jedi, in order to survive as an effective force, cannot allow themselves to be attacked without retribution. That was my major problem with FotJ actually. The Jedi let themselves be attacked over and over again and didn't actively do anything.

If I were facing Jedi who I knew wouldn't do anything to me after I had them attacked more than once then I have no incentive to stop attacking them. Jedi have to, due to the partially feudal system of Star Wars, respond with equal or greater force whenever attacked.

You are thinking in a fallacy manner.

 

No Jedi is going to, nor are they expected to, offer every single enemy a chance to surrender individually they aren't supposed to sit back and let an enemy try to kill them and politely offer surrender. Generally if you are actively trying to kill the Jedi then they don't have to offer surrender.

 

Darth Maul attacked the Jedi. Once you directly attack the Jedi that is paramount to saying, "I am not going to surrender." Effectively Maul never got the "surrender" speech because he initially attacked the Jedi. Usually the surrender comes before an enemy attacks or after an enemy has been rendered a non-threat.

Really? Could you point me to where in their code of conduct it says all of this? Because it sounds like massive assumptions.

Either way, by your own statements earlier in this very thread, the Jedi are never the first to attack, thus, they would never have to offer surrender to anybody; they're always attacked first, after all, and once they're attacked, as you say, they're under no obligation to offer or - as we cover further below - accept surrender. That's...well, that's considerably more inhumane than our current laws and customs of war, to start.

In the case of Sidious, Sidious wasn't defeated and Windu knew that. Windu knew that Sidious had enough power (political and otherwise) to not be "defeated" at all. Also, note, that Sidious was still trying to kill Mace at the same time Mace was overpowering him. Sidious did not surrender nor was he a prisoner.

Ah, and here we have our no true Scotsman. So, as long as the Jedi determines that his foe isn't really beaten, it's perfectly fine for them to perform - or in some cases ineptly attempt to perform - battlefield executions?

The Jedi, in order to survive as an effective force, cannot allow themselves to be attacked without retribution. That was my major problem with FotJ actually. The Jedi let themselves be attacked over and over again and didn't actively do anything.

I have absolutely no idea what FotJ is.

If I were facing Jedi who I knew wouldn't do anything to me after I had them attacked more than once then I have no incentive to stop attacking them. Jedi have to, due to the partially feudal system of Star Wars, respond with equal or greater force whenever attacked.

You're going to want to rethink this one once you actually work through its implications for a force that describes itself, over and over, as peacekeepers.

Walsh, I agree with you on most points, but not on this one:

The entire point of the throne room scene of Luke vs Vader was to show that Luke wouldn't kill a defeated opponent.

 

"No. Your plan has failed your highness. I am a Jedi... Like my father before me."

In this battle, it was about more than that. Luke had decided before NOT to fight Vader and instead try to redeem him. When Luke attacked the Emperor it was because of anger. And anger is a dark side emotion.

The same is even more true when he attacks Vader after Vader said he want to turn Leia. The Emperor and Vader use Lukes will to defend his friends to manipulate him towards the dark side. Jedi should defend others, but not in this way.

So I'd say that the point of this scene was that in the end Luke was strong enough to put aside his anger and hatred. In this moment the Emperor lost his power over him.

You're going to want to rethink this one once you actually work through its implications for a force that describes itself, over and over, as peacekeepers.

Nope. You are trying to give the term "peacekeeper" connotations that the word doesn't have.

Here is an example:

A war has broken out between party A and party B, party C sends in troops to stop the fighting by using force when needed party C's force is a peacekeeping force.

or another example:

A war has broken out between party A and party B. Party B is losing the war. Party C sends in troops to ally with party B in securing its own boarders during the conflict which involves engaging and actively fighting the forces of party A. Party C is a peacekeeper.

Basically "peacekeeper" means a lot more than you seem to think it means.

Also... You don't have to be attacked to offer surrender.

Here is a perfect example:

The Sith attack the Republic. Start taking Republic worlds. The Jedi send out a TRANSMISSION to the Sith that says, "Emperor of the Sith. Your forces have invaded Republic space. You have 7 hours to withdraw and surrender to be tried for War Crimes. If you don't we will engage any Sith forces that remain."

And BAM the Sith had a chance to surrender.

A war has broken out between party A and party B. Party B is losing the war. Party C sends in troops to ally with party B in securing its own boarders during the conflict which involves engaging and actively fighting the forces of party A. Party C is a peacekeeper.

 

Basically "peacekeeper" means a lot more than you seem to think it means.

You sure you're actually an academic at an accredited institution? That's an allied combatant, not a peacekeeper.

Regardless, all modern forces, when offered their opponents' unconditional surrender, regardless of who started the hostilities, are obliged to take it lest they wish to be regarded as war criminals. The same is true for...well, pretty much anyone who follows any sort of rules or laws, come to think of it. A cop's not allowed to decide a suspect represents too much of an immediate risk to arrest, and thus simply kill them. Soldiers are not allowed to make the determination that their enemies' waving of the white flag isn't earnest enough, and thus kill them. According to you - and only you, it should be noted - Jedi are.

They follow a far less humane code of conduct when it comes to battle than we (or they) think. According to you, anyway.

You sure you're actually an academic at an accredited institution? That's an allied combatant, not a peacekeeper.

 

Regardless, all modern forces, when offered their opponents' unconditional surrender, regardless of who started the hostilities, are obliged to take it lest they wish to be regarded as war criminals. The same is true for...well, pretty much anyone who follows any sort of rules or laws, come to think of it. A cop's not allowed to decide a suspect represents too much of an immediate risk to arrest, and thus simply kill them. Soldiers are not allowed to make the determination that their enemies' waving of the white flag isn't earnest enough, and thus kill them. According to you - and only you, it should be noted - Jedi are.

 

They follow a far less humane code of conduct when it comes to battle than we (or they) think. According to you, anyway.

Well, according to me it's a little bit different. I think the Jedi are not allowed to. But in some cases (Mace Windu), some of them decide to act against the Jedi rules because they think it's necessary to save the Republic or whatever. If this is good or bad is a different question. But it doesn't happen often and it isn't supposed to be like that.

You sure you're actually an academic at an accredited institution?

Yes. Quite sure. Thank you for trying to attack the poster in place of the argument.

That's an allied combatant, not a peacekeeper.

Allied combatants are often referred to as "peacekeeping forces" depending on the situation. I could go much further into detail on that but to do so would require me to reference real world events and nations. We are not allowed to do that on these forums.

Regardless, all modern forces, when offered their opponents' unconditional surrender, regardless of who started the hostilities, are obliged to take it lest they wish to be regarded as war criminals. The same is true for...well, pretty much anyone who follows any sort of rules or laws, come to think of it. A cop's not allowed to decide a suspect represents too much of an immediate risk to arrest, and thus simply kill them. Soldiers are not allowed to make the determination that their enemies' waving of the white flag isn't earnest enough, and thus kill them. According to you - and only you, it should be noted - Jedi are.

Okay... First of all... Star Wars isn't our world and the military forces have never followed the same rules so what causes someone to be a War Criminal in real life might not be the same in Star Wars. Heck, in Star Wars genocide a peaceful species who has surrendered isn't always a War Crime.

As to your analogy about cops and soldiers... Sorry but no. If a cop is trying to arrest a suspect and the suspect is holding a handgun and has not put it away, and more importantly is aiming it at the Cop then the cop can and will shoot the suspect.

Your example of Palpatine.

Palpatine was actively firing Force Lightning at Mace Windu. That is the same as having a loaded gun in his hand.

They follow a far less humane code of conduct when it comes to battle than we (or they) think. According to you, anyway.

Again you resort to putting words in my mouth. That is strike two. Please keep your comments on the topic. Failure to do so will result in my discontinuation of conversation with you.

Yes. Quite sure. Thank you for trying to attack the poster in place of the argument.

Shall I dredge up posts where you and your supporters make use of your supposed credentials in an effort to 'win' past arguments to show the relevance of the question? Posting history is such a boon, sometimes.

Allied combatants are often referred to as "peacekeeping forces" depending on the situation.

And terrorists are often referred to as "freedom fighters." Hence why objective definitions are useful. The objective definition of peacekeeping forces, by the way, does not include allied combatants.

Okay... First of all... Star Wars isn't our world and the military forces have never followed the same rules so what causes someone to be a War Criminal in real life might not be the same in Star Wars. Heck, in Star Wars genocide a peaceful species who has surrendered isn't always a War Crime.

Nowhere did I make the argument that they did. I simply pointed out that by our standards, the Jedi would in fact be war criminals. You've spent several posts now arguing against that assertion, which makes your concession here somewhat...confusing. I'm working on the assumption that you remember your own posts, of course.

Your example of Palpatine.

 

Palpatine was actively firing Force Lightning at Mace Windu. That is the same as having a loaded gun in his hand.

I suggest you actually watch the scene sometime. Mace makes the decision that Palpatine's too dangerous to live without Force Lightning being actively shot at him at the time. He was, in fact, cowering on a window ledge and taking no offensive actions, but instead pleading with Anakin for his life. We, with the meta-knowledge of viewers, know it was entirely insincere. Jedi, I presume, aren't allowed to work from meta-knowledge of the narrative.

Again you resort to putting words in my mouth. That is strike two. Please keep your comments on the topic. Failure to do so will result in my discontinuation of conversation with you.

I'm pretty sure you meant that as some sort of threat, rather than to provide an incentive for off-topic commentary. You may want to rethink that one as well.

Incidentally, Bioware seems to disagree with pretty much everything you've said regarding the Jedi code. Spoilers follow:

There are some tenants with the Jedi that may help explain this better.

The Jedi are the guardians of civilization, yet do not allow civilization to destroy needlessly.

Jedi must put the needs of the community above the needs of individuals.

A Jedi must protect the weak and defenseless from evil.

Jedi must always cooperate in battle or crisis.

Conquer Aggression

A sizable number of Jedi, in training, confused the meanings of attack, defense and aggression. Thus Younglings were taught that it was possible for a Jedi to strike without aggression, so long as they acted without recklessness, hatred or anger. A Jedi was permitted to kill in self-defense—only if there was no other option. However, Jedi instructors taught their students that killing, no matter what the circumstances, was not to become commonplace. To conquer aggression, even in combat, a Jedi must have explored every other option, including surrender, before resorting to using lethal force. Jedi who depended on murder were close to the Dark Side of the Force.

Honor Life

Jedi were expected never to commit murder, for any reason. However, if confronted with a life-or-death struggle, a Jedi was permitted to kill to complete their mission. This act was not encouraged, as ending life strengthened the dark side; however, if the act was justified—if it saved others' lives, or if the Jedi was acting on the will of the Force—then the light side was equally strengthened. Jedi were also expected to think of those they had killed, and to think of the suffering caused by their deaths. A Jedi who did not care about his victims was on the path to the dark side.

Render Aid

Jedi were obliged to help those in need of aid whenever possible, and were expected to be able to prioritize quickly. Jedi were taught that while saving one life was important, saving many lives was even more so. This principle did not mean a Jedi had to abandon other goals in every circumstance, but merely that a Jedi must do his or her best to make sure that they aided those who were most in need of assistance.

Defend The Weak

Similarly, a Jedi was expected to defend the weak from those who oppressed them, ranging from small-scale suffering at the hands of an individual to large-scale enslavement of entire species. However, Jedi were taught to remember that all may not have been as it seemed, and that they should respect other cultures, even if they clashed with a Jedi's moral or ethical code. Jedi were also warned not to act in areas out of their jurisdiction, and to always consider the consequences of their actions.

In looking at the tenants you will see defending can cover a variety of items. I'm not sure about you but if I saw someone being harrassed/attack by someone could I as a Jedi stand there or walk by and do nothing? Not me, not doing something to stop the situation is worse than doing something.

And regardless of what you may believe each Jedi has to determine what is right for her/him. The code is merely a guide not an absolute rule. Will some jedi act without thinking? Sure because they are human/aliens and have feelings and emotions. No one is perfect and 100% correct all the time. Jedi make mistakes.

Also remember for the Jedi you see defending/fighting there are other Jedi behind the scenes such as the healers, diplomats, etc. Not every single Jedi is on the battlefield or sent to fight.

Nowhere did I make the argument that they did. I simply pointed out that by our standards, the Jedi would in fact be war criminals. You've spent several posts now arguing against that assertion, which makes your concession here somewhat...confusing. I'm working on the assumption that you remember your own posts, of course.

No, not "the" Jedi. At least not if this is about Mace Windu.Mace Windu would have been a Cop who killed a criminal in custody. That's his crime, not that of the Jedi order. It's not sure if the Jedi order would have tolerated it or if Windu would have been removed from the Council.