And comparing a fictional event to a historical one makes me queasy. I think i won't continue such a discussion.

Very wise.

I think there might be some argument as to how much Star Wars owes to real life, as Lucas grew up watching post-war films and they did colour his views to some extent.

But as 2P51 said, he clearly wasn't trying to make 'Platoon in Space' and real-life comparisons to Star Wars always end badly...

Sooner or later, Godwin's Law will be invoked, and You-Know-Who will pop up and completely derail the thread...

In all the articles I read Lucas drew on a wide variety of inspirations for Star Wars. Look up "The Lightning" and the "The Fighting Devil Dogs" and you'll find Darth Vader. Like I said previously he was aiming for that pulp sci fi nostalgia piece, where the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, and there are no shades of moral ambiguity.

In regards to the Empire, hard not to invoke he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-the-internet, because so much of the Empire in how they look, the language they used, the actions they take is drawn straight from that source. Dressed in hard contrasting colors, interiors with gray tones, antiseptic looking, all things military presented on a grand huge scale, military ranks and titles with a royal feel to them, doomsday super weapons, the language of fear and terror as political tools, casual decisions leading to genocidal actions. None is by mistake, it was a cinematography design to present the audience with the clearest of visual and dialogue examples to cement in their minds the Empire was evil, period.

Compare to the Alliance and their language, appearance, and dialogue. Speaking about people's rights and representation, bases constructed in hiding but in harmony with their surroundings, under ancient sites left intact, built into glaciers, using the bare minimum military force necessary without being overbearing, dressed in earth tones, running rather than fighting a costly war of attrition, aiming to hold the top echelons responsible and lay blame at their feet. All by design.

In regards to the Empire, hard not to invoke he-who-shall-not-be-named-on-the-internet, because so much of the Empire in how they look, the language they used, the actions they take is drawn straight from that source. Dressed in hard contrasting colors, interiors with gray tones, antiseptic looking, all things military presented on a grand huge scale, military ranks and titles with a royal feel to them, doomsday super weapons, the language of fear and terror as political tools, casual decisions leading to genocidal actions. None is by mistake, it was a cinematography design to present the audience with the clearest of visual and dialogue examples to cement in their minds the Empire was evil, period.

He's talking about Ming right?

Totes yo. Ready the Ion Cannon!

Did people see the recent article on Starwars.com about the subtle parallels between Star Wars and the Second World War?

http://www.starwars.com/news/from-world-war-to-star-wars-rise-of-an-empire

But Maelora... what about Jar Jar? Where in the holiest of heavens is Jar Jar Binks in your campaign?!!?

Nobody has asked, so I assume he went home after his little jaunt with the two Jedi and settled down with another bug-eyed fishy creature and made baby bug-eyed fishy creatures.

Personally I didn't mind JarJar. (Nor ewoks, nor the Holiday Special, which tells us about civilians in SW and what life was like in the 70's for those of us who weren't there!)

Heck, if you took midichlorians (and the stupid stuff about Maul just 'walking off' the inconvenience of being chopped in half, though that stupidity came later) out of Phantom Menace, I'd have enjoyed it. Not as good as the original films, but fun enough.

To be honest, considering the obscenities and atrocities that came in the last two sequels, those who hate JarJar - at worst, a mildly silly comedy character - seem to me to be spectacularly missing the point...

Did people see the recent article on Starwars.com about the subtle parallels between Star Wars and the Second World War?

http://www.starwars.com/news/from-world-war-to-star-wars-rise-of-an-empire

Awww, crap.

He's arrived.

There goes another promising thread.

Can we just mercy-kill this thread now?

I second that motion.

Now if you excuse me i feel the need to throw up.

Did people see the recent article on Starwars.com about the subtle parallels between Star Wars and the Second World War?

http://www.starwars.com/news/from-world-war-to-star-wars-rise-of-an-empire

Awww, crap.

He's arrived.

There goes another promising thread.

Can we just mercy-kill this thread now?

That link is actually relevant to the discussion. Please discuss the posts themselves rather than taking jabs at the one making the posts.

As a staunch Imperialist, allow me to field this question, out of character.

Yes, the Rebel Alliance is unequivocally "good." Even in the first movie, the clear oppression of the galaxy is evident. We have line soldiers storming a Consular ship and killing the crew, the wholesale slaughter of natives and farmers, torture, the dissolution of an entire galactic democratic government (no matter how ineffective), and the destruction of a pacifist planet. And that's just the first movie!

However. That's not to say that players that want to play the other side of the fence can't do so, nor should the morality of the Rebel Alliance be clear cut as good and proper. In a war situation, sometimes hard decisions have to be made, and sometimes the motives of those people involved in overthrowing a government should also be in question. Personally I think FFG has done a good job in their pre-packaged adventures in allowing the characters to be as good or evil as they want to be, especially as they relate to, for example, how they interact with the Onderon natives in that series of adventures.

I have a group of players that are interested in playing through an Imperial campaign. Exploring the morality of both the Rebellion and the Empire is challenging. How could a character reasonably justify the "evils" of the Empire? The destruction of a planet is no mean feat to blow off.

It makes for an interesting narrative campaign. Which is what's so awesome about this system!

Stay tuned.

Realistically, yes, they are the good guys. Technically speaking however, If you look at it politically, they are far from the heroes they like to believe themselves to be. While it is true they stand for freedom, etc. When you actually think about it, they're pretty much terrorists trying to overthrow a their legitimate government. Regardless of how noble and honorable their goals, and no matter how heinous the Empire's crimes... No matter how justified their actions are, it is still, by rule of law, treason at best and terrorism at worst.

1. Palpatine was democratically elected by the Senate into power, replacing Valorum, making his reign as "Supreme Chancellor" fully legitimate.

2. When the senate was re-organized into the "First Galactic Empire" note, as mentioned, the "thunderous applause". A clearer example of Senate approval I cannot possibly imagine.

3. Technically speaking, the Jedi did attempt to overthrow their duly elected leader based entirely on the hunch of a apprentice that none on the council trusted (Anakin). Can anyone say, "lol"? Yet regardless of intention, treason is still treason. Mace Windu can complain all he wants about "absolute power", but he forgets entirely that the very "supreme power" he is QQing about was given to Palpatine by democratic vote.

4. When Palpatine abolished the Senate (episode IV), keep in mind that he is the duly elected leader and the senate voted him ultimate power over the Empire.

I still think though that the Republic would have been in far better off in the hands of someone like Revan as opposed to either the Jedi or Palpatine. Force save the Old Republic had Revan chosen not to take action against the Mandalorian threat. The Jedi were quite content to see all sentient life exterminated from the Galaxy at the hands of the Mandalorians rather than go to the Galaxy's rescue. Had the Mandalorians made it all the way to Coruscant...well, lets the Jedi's white flags would more than likely not save anyone. Just wanted to bring that whole thing up to remind you exactly who the likes of Bail Organa & Co are fighting in the name of.

Realistically, yes, they are the good guys. Technically speaking however, If you look at it politically, they are far from the heroes they like to believe themselves to be. While it is true they stand for freedom, etc. When you actually think about it, they're pretty much terrorists trying to overthrow a their legitimate government. Regardless of how noble and honorable their goals, and no matter how heinous the Empire's crimes... No matter how justified their actions are, it is still, by rule of law, treason at best and terrorism at worst.

1. Palpatine was democratically elected by the Senate into power, replacing Valorum, making his reign as "Supreme Chancellor" fully legitimate.

2. When the senate was re-organized into the "First Galactic Empire" note, as mentioned, the "thunderous applause". A clearer example of Senate approval I cannot possibly imagine.

3. Technically speaking, the Jedi did attempt to overthrow their duly elected leader based entirely on the hunch of a apprentice that none on the council trusted (Anakin). Can anyone say, "lol"? Yet regardless of intention, treason is still treason. Mace Windu can complain all he wants about "absolute power", but he forgets entirely that the very "supreme power" he is QQing about was given to Palpatine by democratic vote.

4. When Palpatine abolished the Senate (episode IV), keep in mind that he is the duly elected leader and the senate voted him ultimate power over the Empire.

That being said: Darth Revan, Savior of the Republic, for Supreme Chancellor!!

You aren't legitimately elected if it was the result of a conspiracy, that is called fraud in every universe. Elected officials take oaths to faithfully uphold their offices, Palpatine was lying and laying the groundwork for a galactic fraud. There was zero legal about anything he did.

Most of my Galactic Imp characters know the Empire is flawed but believe the flaws can be fixed from within the system and that the rebels are making that harder. The one Galactic Imp alt who discovered that Palpatine himself was among the Empire's corrupt leaders promptly deserted than defected..

Half of my Galactic Imp characters were lucky in that they weren't active when Alderaan was destroyed so they didn't feel any guilt from that (Most entered service post-Endor, or the campaign ended pre-ANH and one was XO on a ship that suffered a hyperdrive malfunction in 4 BBY which basically froze time for its crew until 11 ABY. And my post-Endor Imperial privateer alts usually had some major grievance against their homeworld's NR allied government or the NR itself.).

The ones that were active in the Alderaan to Endor era usually had been hurt by something the Alliance had done badly enough that they simply placed on the blame for Alderaan on Tarkin's shoulders and typically didn't know about the Death Star II until it was destroyed (For example one had a Republican/Imperial Fighter pilot as his father and a Republican/Imperial Starship designer as his mother. His father was shot down fighting CIS holdouts a few months after the Empire formed and he entered the academy stem a couple of years later. Than his mother was killed during an Alliance commando raid on the research station she was working at shortly before Yavin. He was promoted to command of a frigate and spent the rest of the pre-Endor period on quiet patrols, escorting convoys, hitting pirate outposts, and attacking Alliance supply lines.

And ElizLestrad I don't think anyone is denying that they were committing treason. But committing treason is not inherently evil act and both the Jedi's treason against Palpatine and the Alliance's against the Empire is pretty easily justified from an objective standpoint given Palpatine's actions and those of the Empire. Also don't forget that Palpatine himself was committing treason during most of his time as Chancellor, and planning to commit treason long before that.

I'm not saying their actions were not justified. I'm saying that their criminals of the highest order (traitors to their government).

And yes, while Palpatine may have had evil motives, he had absolutely no guarantee that he would have gotten a majority vote for everything. You need only look at the number of systems that joined the Rebellion to see that. It was nothing but pure luck on Papatine's part that it all just happened to work out smoothly. That's why its legitimate. Because realistically there just as much chance of his plans failing as succeeding. The only reason they succeeded was for plot reasons. There would not have been a story otherwise.

Especially with the ludicrous amount of luck that Master Windu would listen to an apprentice he spent three movies pretty much trash talking in order to get the Jedi and the Emperor into a position that it appeared that the Jedi tried to assassinate him. In all fairness, they did. "He's too dangerous to live" those were Windu's own words. Any respectable Jedi would have put him on trial.

To draw on the WWII reference previously mentioned, two prominent German generals (Guderian and Rommel) both refused to take part in any assassination of Hitler yet agreed he should be deposed. Why did they disagree? Because it "was not the right thing to do". Ethically or legally. Rather they both said putting him on trial was the proper thing to do. Yet the Jedi would kill Palpatine without trial for treason? Rather laughable for the "high and mighty" Jedi.

Hell, even Anakin had the higher moral ground when he told Windu "He must stand trial". And Windu didn't trust Anakin there. Yet when that same person, who he also berated to the council about being too close to Palpatine, makes wild claims about the Chancellor being a Sith, then Windu believes him? Give me a break! Palpatine had the best dice roles on his Luck checks than any other RPer I've ever seen.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

- Princess Leia

The whole point of a system like the Republic's senate is to prevent a leader from being able to do whatever he wants. Otherwise they are just a rubberstamp brigade, like the Imperial senate. If a senate is oking everything a leader wishes either that leader is great at keeping everyone happy or the senate isn't doing its job. The Imp senate is definitely the latter. And the odds of planets revolting because a few votes don't go their way is slim unless its a chronic issue and effects a number of worlds.The worlds we know of which fully supported the rebellion typically had massive legitimate grievances against Palpatine like Dac did.

Fixing the Republic's problems would have taken a dedicated anti-corruption investigation with authority to charge senators, and a few laws. (Limiting corporations to light war ships say Long Form Anaxes system cruisers and smaller plus putting caps on their combat fleet and army strengths, reestablishing the Republic armed forces, perhaps buying the warships corporations are no longer allowed to help compensate for what they are losing, forming a dedicated force to stamp out slavery within Republic territories, and requiring feuding member organizations and worlds to allow the Republic to at least make a serious attempt to resolve their disputes peacefully before declaring blockades or war is allowed would cover the big ones.

Fixing the Empire's problems would take either a revolt to remove Palpatine and cronies from power, or letting the galaxy suffer until Palpatine and friends died of old age ant d hoping that their heirs aren't as bad as their predecessors. The Alliance chose option A and really I think it was the best of two bad choices.

And yes, while Palpatine may have had evil motives, he had absolutely no guarantee that he would have gotten a majority vote for everything. You need only look at the number of systems that joined the Rebellion to see that. It was nothing but pure luck on Papatine's part that it all just happened to work out smoothly. That's why its legitimate.

No, it is in no way a legitimate rule. His entire rule is predicated on him colluding with the enemy (the CIS) as Darth Sidious directly and through Count Dooku. His rule is RECOGNIZED as legitimate by the government, but is in fact, not.

Look again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk4AiCnMqpg

Windu and posse come to arrest explicitly in the name of the Senate. The ignited lightsabers were a bit dramatic, but hey, "Star Wars".

Palpatine resisted arrest (to say the least) and turned things deadly. Windu realized what he was up against and responded appropriately (if debatable within Jedi teachings).

Anakin showed up late... after Palpatine had murdered the Republic's accepted peacekeepers... when Windu's eventual "too dangerous to live" already seemed to be a more reasonable conclusion.

And Windu still attempts to arrest him.

Then Palpatine proceeds to establish that "too dangerous to live" may be pretty spot-on.

The anti-Sith-bias may be something worth debating, but Palpatine has already demonstrated most of the deepest fears Jedi have regarding Sith (murderous, conniving, power mad, corrupting) so in the moment there could be slack to be cut.

In summation: Master Windu acted acceptably, in context.

Hello, as a staunch Imperialist, I must object to this slander of the Emperor. The rumours of the Emperor's fraud are just those, rumours. Few outside of the highest levels of rulership, such as the Galactic Senators, would have any inkling of such fraud, and if they did, why aren't they coming forward with evidence of such crimes? Where, during the thunderous applause mentioned previously, were the Senators 'in the know' about this alleged treachery?

If the Jedi were so innocent, why did the survivors flee? If they had evidence of the Empire's betrayal, surely there were those who might listen, amongst the teeming billions of sentients in the galaxy that still worshipped them as the heroes they might well have been once, before their subterfuge and double-crossing?

This is what is so sickening about the Rebellion. They are so quick to point to conspiracies and fraud as evidence of malfeasance, but when the citizens of the galaxy stand up and say "prove it," they point to shadowed rumours and might-haves as evidence. And for every imagined slight against the citizens of this Empire by the legitimate government, the Empire can surely point to the wanton destruction of Imperial property and the deaths of countless officials, military targets, and, indeed, civilians, as evidence of the so-called Rebellion's own malfeasance.

This war is heinous, yes, but to callously sling barbs and arrows at the legitimate head of government while also dragging the countless innocents into harm's way is surely just as heinous. Or have we forgotten the poor Massassi, whose planet was co-opted to be a military target by the Rebel Alliance, who took over their once proud temples and girded them with plasteel and weapons emplacements. Records show they lived for many thousands of years free of the affairs of galactic politics until those miserable scum pitched camp in their jungles!

"His rule is recognized by the government"

You mean, of course, the government that was in power long before Palpatine was ever a senator? The ones who voted him into Supreme Chancellorship? The one's who revered and honored the Jedi? That is precisely the point!

Palpatine's conniving in no way influenced that "emercency powers" vote. The fact that, in the end, he had absolutely no control over the Senate's actions is precisely why his rule has merit. If he had used the force, he could have easily gotten all the systems to go his way. They didn't. In fact, a lot of them rebelled. Both core and outer rim. If he had bribed them, the ones who were legitimate would have caught on and committed would have been formed, investigations made, etc. Bottom line the vote would have had just as much chance (if not more) of failure than success. Palpatine's incredible good plot luck is the only reason his schemes happened to fall into place as perfectly as they did.

You give him far more credit than he deserves.

@Darnex

Agreed. As KotoR makes perfectly clear, the Jedi needed to be overthrown for the good of the Republic. Keep in mind that they were the ones who reveled as worlds burned and entire species massacred by the Mandalorians, then attempted to label Revan as a traitor for saving the republic from total annihilation.

The Jedi were the ones who reveled as worlds burned under the Separatist threat and the Jedi ordered the Republic not to fight.

Heck, if they had still been around you honestly think they would have allowed the Republic to fight the Ssi-Ruuk? Or the Yuuzahn Vong? Ha. With their track record I wouldn't hold my breath.

In that regard, Palpatine might have actually done the Republic a service, though killing *all* of them might have been a bit of a stretch. One only has to hope Luke never made/makes the same idiot mistakes that Yoda and his predecessors did. Though I give a lot of credit to Satele Shan. At least she had the sense to fight. Where were the Revanites when the Republic needed them?

Regardless, he still needed to be deposed as a dictator. But again, regardless of their motives, the rebels are still criminals of the highest order. They are heroes solely on the fact that, like the American Revolution, its the winners who write history.

What is the color of the sky on your planet?? His 'conniving' caused the emergency powers vote. He murdered a Jedi Master, purchased a clandestine clone army, conspired with the Trade Federation to create a fictional crisis that got spun up into an artificial insurgency. He committed murder, conspiracy, sedition and treason. His rule has zero merit.

The fact that, in the end, he had absolutely no control over the Senate's actions is precisely why his rule has merit.

(bold mine)

Palpatine, himself, would disagree with you.

"I am the Senate" is a direct quote and explicitly shows his opinion on the matter.

Even if we were to debate Palpatine's accuracy, correct or incorrect in his own self-assessment, his motives are laid bare: He set out to connive his way to power.

The Darth Plagueis novel covers some of the behind the scenes manipulation of both Palpatine and Darth Plagueis in making the Empire come into being. I enjoyed the novel.

You forget that Palpatine (as THE Sith Lord) has a rather large ego, and ego does not constitute that physically or emotionally being the case. Palpatine could not control Master Windu into suddenly (and miraculously) trusting a single word out of Anakin's mouth (I think Palpatine is a Sith Lord) when, as I stated, he never trusted Anakin even as far back as the Phantom Menace.

And again, based on the precedence of the Clone Wars, the Jedi were more that likely going to fall from favor without Palpatine's help anyways. The Senate didn't need Palpatine's "clandestine clone army", they would have mustered their own. They had the systems to do it.

Yes, Sidious created the Separatist threat, but again, that Senate still had to choose to vote for him. So we honestly believe that there were no other candidates who were for going to war? In a senate as large as the Republics? Really?!

So many things had to go right for Palpatine to achieve control without more systems rebelling than the ones that eventually did. That takes extraordinary luck when you look at all the people involved "on and off the set" (excluding Palpatine, the Jedi, and the Separatists).

All that is really a mute point though, since I don't recall ever stating that the Rebellion's act of treason was wrong (though I would hold that usurping the Jedi, was a good thing, but a house cleaning would have been a bit better than an outright massacre...). The question was: "is the Alliance truely "good guys"?

The answer is no. A true "good guy" would not have committed a crime to achieve their goal (deposing Palpatine). They would have followed the "straight and narrow" path and done it legitimately as the good Captain stated thus proving themselves to be the better person. They would have stood their ground to the last and fought it in the senate, in the courts, holovids, Soap boxes, etc. They would have used politicking and tricks to stall the votes and raise questions. Palpatine would not have been able to just replace everyone so quickly without heads being raised (especially the Jedi's) Again, I make reference to Guderian and Rommel's refusal to assassinate even a villian such as Hitler. Yet regardless of how right the Rebellion was in their actions, they committed not only a crime, but a crime of the highest order. Wrong or right a crime its still a crime no matter how badly we as human beings try to justify it.

The question was: is the Alliance truely "good guys"?

The answer is no. A true "good guy" would not have committed a crime to achieve their goal (deposing Palpatine). They would have followed the "straight and narrow" path and done it legitimately as the good Captain stated.

Ah, there it is. I see now.

That, right there, may be the point of contention: the definition of "true good guy".

This is likely way too subjective to debate properly. As there is no objective definition, each poster is apt to use the definition that backs their "certain point of view".

Both Han and Leia where on the "good guy" spectrum. Han liked to shoot first and Leia liked to discuss things in a committee (just don't phrase it like that, to her). Both play to their strengths, both have their "dark side", as it were, but both worked specifically to accomplish good... even if our individual definitions open the debate as to how well they accomplished that goal.

And I hate to quote myself at all, much less so soon, but regarding Palpatine's ego:

Even if we were to debate Palpatine's accuracy, correct or incorrect in his own self-assessment, his motives are laid bare: He set out to connive his way to power.

"His rule is recognized by the government"

You mean, of course, the government that was in power long before Palpatine was ever a senator? The ones who voted him into Supreme Chancellorship? The one's who revered and honored the Jedi? That is precisely the point!

Palpatine's conniving in no way influenced that "emercency powers" vote. The fact that, in the end, he had absolutely no control over the Senate's actions is precisely why his rule has merit. If he had used the force, he could have easily gotten all the systems to go his way. They didn't. In fact, a lot of them rebelled. Both core and outer rim. If he had bribed them, the ones who were legitimate would have caught on and committed would have been formed, investigations made, etc. Bottom line the vote would have had just as much chance (if not more) of failure than success. Palpatine's incredible good plot luck is the only reason his schemes happened to fall into place as perfectly as they did.

You give him far more credit than he deserves.

@Darnex

Agreed. As KotoR makes perfectly clear, the Jedi needed to be overthrown for the good of the Republic. Keep in mind that they were the ones who reveled as worlds burned and entire species massacred by the Mandalorians, then attempted to label Revan as a traitor for saving the republic from total annihilation.

The Jedi were the ones who reveled as worlds burned under the Separatist threat and the Jedi ordered the Republic not to fight.

Heck, if they had still been around you honestly think they would have allowed the Republic to fight the Ssi-Ruuk? Or the Yuuzahn Vong? Ha. With their track record I wouldn't hold my breath.

In that regard, Palpatine might have actually done the Republic a service, though killing *all* of them might have been a bit of a stretch. One only has to hope Luke never made/makes the same idiot mistakes that Yoda and his predecessors did. Though I give a lot of credit to Satele Shan. At least she had the sense to fight. Where were the Revanites when the Republic needed them?

Regardless, he still needed to be deposed as a dictator. But again, regardless of their motives, the rebels are still criminals of the highest order. They are heroes solely on the fact that, like the American Revolution, its the winners who write history.

Ok A: When did the Jedi tell the Republic it couldn't fight the Separatist threat? and B: What worlds were the Separatists burning to the ground before the Clone Wars opened. Because all of the conflicts I recall from the pre-Clone Wars Separatist crisis I know of were minor skirmishes rather than world burning battles. And the Jedi were active in the Clone Wars from day one.

The question was: is the Alliance truely "good guys"?

The answer is no. A true "good guy" would not have committed a crime to achieve their goal (deposing Palpatine). They would have followed the "straight and narrow" path and done it legitimately as the good Captain stated.

Please tell me you are not seriously claiming that breaking an unjust law or rebelling against an unjust government prevents someone from being a true good guy. Prevents them from being Lawful Good sure but that doesn't stop them from being Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

Lawful Good is in no way the only true path to goodness.

I like to throw in a (little) question:

Could the Separatists only get that big ('half of the galaxy') thanks to Sidious' manipulations or because of the previous decisions of the Senate for the Free-Trade zones followed one century later with heavy taxation (and therefore simply pissing them off) ?

Remember that several cooperations (like the Banking Clan) had seats in the Senate. Can you write LOBBYING any bigger?

Please tell me you are not seriously claiming that breaking an unjust law or rebelling against an unjust government prevents someone from being a true good guy. Prevents them from being Lawful Good sure but that doesn't stop them from being Neutral Good or Chaotic Good.

Actually, there's nothing preventing a LG person - or even a LN person - breaking an unjust law or rebelling against an unjust government. To some degree, their attachment to the real law makes them more likely to do so.

Just as a US soldier given an illegal order isn't just able to refuse it... he's legally obliged to refuse it.