Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Jedi and Violence


Cavell's Avatar


Cavell
07.29.2012 , 03:03 AM | #11
Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessorWalsh View Post
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."

ProfessorWalsh's Avatar


ProfessorWalsh
07.29.2012 , 04:23 AM | #12
Quote: Originally Posted by Cavell View Post
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.
"There is no room for compromise. We walk the path of the light side, or we fall into darkness. There is no gray area, Ben."
~ Jedi Grand Master Luke Skywalker (P. 187 FotJ, Book II: Omen)
Host of the Jedi Council stream also author of From the Journal of Val Starwind

Cavell's Avatar


Cavell
07.29.2012 , 06:04 AM | #13
Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessorWalsh View Post
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.

ProfessorWalsh's Avatar


ProfessorWalsh
07.29.2012 , 12:22 PM | #14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cavell View Post
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.
"There is no room for compromise. We walk the path of the light side, or we fall into darkness. There is no gray area, Ben."
~ Jedi Grand Master Luke Skywalker (P. 187 FotJ, Book II: Omen)
Host of the Jedi Council stream also author of From the Journal of Val Starwind

Cavell's Avatar


Cavell
07.29.2012 , 12:55 PM | #15
Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessorWalsh View Post
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Eillack's Avatar


Eillack
07.29.2012 , 07:00 PM | #16
Jedi "defend" for the most part. They are a non-violent culture, but in events like the wars that are going on before and during TOR, the Jedi have been forced into combat.
With unity, comes strength...with strength, comes power...with power...comes obedience.....
CE Owner '09 Account
Quote: Originally Posted by BruceMaclean View Post
..I think it's ultimately our fault for not communicating enough.

Maaruin's Avatar


Maaruin
07.29.2012 , 08:13 PM | #17
Walsh, I agree with you on most points, but not on this one:

Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessorWalsh View Post
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.
"I was one of many. We were servants of the dark side… Sith Lords, we called ourselves. So proud. In the end we were not so proud. We hid… hid from those we had betrayed. We fell… and I knew it would be so."
-Ajunta Pall

ProfessorWalsh's Avatar


ProfessorWalsh
07.30.2012 , 06:23 AM | #18
Quote: Originally Posted by Cavell View Post
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.
"There is no room for compromise. We walk the path of the light side, or we fall into darkness. There is no gray area, Ben."
~ Jedi Grand Master Luke Skywalker (P. 187 FotJ, Book II: Omen)
Host of the Jedi Council stream also author of From the Journal of Val Starwind

Cavell's Avatar


Cavell
07.30.2012 , 10:43 AM | #19
Quote: Originally Posted by ProfessorWalsh View Post
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.

Maaruin's Avatar


Maaruin
07.30.2012 , 10:50 AM | #20
Quote: Originally Posted by Cavell View Post
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.
"I was one of many. We were servants of the dark side… Sith Lords, we called ourselves. So proud. In the end we were not so proud. We hid… hid from those we had betrayed. We fell… and I knew it would be so."
-Ajunta Pall