The big difference in star wars is that the force is tangible, and perceptible. it's real.

At the risk of getting too political would the jedi be justified/justifiable if the force couldn't be proven...

At the risk of getting too political...

That's cool. As long as we can avoid 'Party X is <whatever>' we're ok.

Divine Command theory isn't moral for any non-practitioners or non-believers.

That's the whole catch though isn't it. The existence of the Force and if it has a will making it an sentant being of some sort isn't dependant on whether people believe in it or not.

RL religion lacks something the Force in Star Wars has. The Force can be objectively proven to exist, something we can't do with God. Denying the existence of the Force at least in the Republic would be akin to a flat earth. That was one of the failings IMO between the Prequels and the OT.

In the OT they made it seem like Jedi's were somewhat scarce and only they really believed in the force. The RA's 'may the force be with you' was more of a catch phrase to set them apart and tie them back to the Republic then because they really believed in it... At least that's how I saw it.

But in the prequels and especially TCW while there may not of been a lot of Jedi they were very, very visible. So the whole ancient religion comment from Han or the way they talked on the DSI to Vader doesn't really make a lot of sense to me in that light.

I mean how do you go from Peacekeepers and Generals in the Grand Army to hookie religion in a matter of 15 or so years?

Again I don't agree with their methods, and perhaps their methods do make them evil. But unlike the Empire they were at least trying to do what was right. And if you accept the in-universe concept of the Force they were doing what the Force wanted.

Something else I'll throw out there.

I consider the fall of Anakin to be not proof that love and connections are dangerous to a Jedi, but rather that making them taboo was the real problem.

If Anakin hadn't needed to hide his feelings, hadn't needed to lie about it and the rest. Could of gone to Obi-wan and gotten consoling about what he was feeling, he would of been less likely to fall to the dark side.

I'd agree with that, and I'd argue that this was one of the big issues with the PT Jedi.

Compare to the KOTOR era Jedi, who also had their own issues were at least not as insane as the PT era.

Compare to the KOTOR era Jedi, who also had their own issues were at least not as insane as the PT era.

Yeah, I tend to think of the TOR era Jedi as the true Jedi and what they had in the prequels to be an aberration and really a corruption of the 'true faith' as it were.

At the risk of getting too political...

That's cool. As long as we can avoid 'Party X is <whatever>' we're ok.

Divine Command theory isn't moral for any non-practitioners or non-believers.

That's the whole catch though isn't it. The existence of the Force and if it has a will making it an sentant being of some sort isn't dependant on whether people believe in it or not.

RL religion lacks something the Force in Star Wars has. The Force can be objectively proven to exist, something we can't do with God. Denying the existence of the Force at least in the Republic would be akin to a flat earth. That was one of the failings IMO between the Prequels and the OT.

In the OT they made it seem like Jedi's were somewhat scarce and only they really believed in the force. The RA's 'may the force be with you' was more of a catch phrase to set them apart and tie them back to the Republic then because they really believed in it... At least that's how I saw it.

But in the prequels and especially TCW while there may not of been a lot of Jedi they were very, very visible. So the whole ancient religion comment from Han or the way they talked on the DSI to Vader doesn't really make a lot of sense to me in that light.

I mean how do you go from Peacekeepers and Generals in the Grand Army to hookie religion in a matter of 15 or so years?

Again I don't agree with their methods, and perhaps their methods do make them evil. But unlike the Empire they were at least trying to do what was right. And if you accept the in-universe concept of the Force they were doing what the Force wanted.

As the saying goes.. the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How are you going to prove that DCT is real to an ignorant moisture farmer on Tantoonie? Say to him "There is a sentient force that affects everything, also it is objectively good. Here let me move some rocks around with my mind to prove it." That some individuals can demonstrate force abilities suggests nothing of the morality or sentience of the Force to any non-force sensitive.

I guess the Jedi could always mind control/mind trick them into believing. The OT, Prequels and TFA shows us that completely overriding a sentient's free will because it suits them is completely moral according to the unimpeachable Good Living "Force". Jedi Mind Trick and subjecting will screams Sith, it's confusing to me how it was ever considered a "Jedi thing".

@RogueCorona: Why is the organization Rotten? I know Pelleon was a good man, what's to say there were not others. In the old EU/Legends canon there was at least one Grand Admiral who refused to do war crimes etc, and overall was a "good" character, who was ironically executed by the new republic.

Also: Was Palpatine the most corrupt member? Most in charge sure. Most corrupt? I'd argue he got there because of the inherent corruption of the old republic.

Because the leadership as a whole was evil. There may have been some good military personnel, even good government officials but all current evidence indicates that they were outnumbered or at least massively outpowered by the evil ones in the Palpatine era.

Many a Nazi went to jail or was hung for war crimes when they contended they were only following orders.

When I was in the US Army one thing that was also drilled into us, was that we not only could, but must disobey an illegal order.

The people you mentioned were typically the ones carrying out atrocities, rather than normal troops.

Typically but not always there were a few Nazi fighter pilots who ended up in Soviet labor camps because the Soviets ruled that every time they shot down a Soviet aircraft they were committing a war crime.

And there was Karl Dönitz who was convicted of not countermanding an order never carried out under his command, not putting a stop to forced labor in shipyards (As naval commander could he do that?), convincing Hitler not to cancel the Geneva Conventions for the wrong reason, and ordering unrestricted submarine warfare (Something the Allies did as well) though he only got sentenced for the first two charges.

That some individuals can demonstrate force abilities suggests nothing of the morality or sentience of the Force to any non-force sensitive.

But the thing is, because we're talking about a story here, we have a god's eye view, the farmer doesn't. I can objectively state that the Force is real and inherently good, because that's what the author has told me. That is honestly not something that can really be debated because that's one of the founding concepts of the universe as a whole.

At that point all discussion of the Force has to take that into account.

Jedi Mind Trick and subjecting will screams Sith, it's confusing to me how it was ever considered a "Jedi thing".

Well depends on. Is restraining someone who's trying to hurt themselves or others wrong? Did Obi-Wan really cause harm to those stormtroopers when he used the jedi mind trick to make them believe those weren't the droids they were looking for?

I do know that in many of the SW RPG's you ran a serious risk of dark side points if you abused that ability. How you used it and what your goal was, made a difference.

For example using it to get free drinks was bad, but using it so you didn't have to kill a guard was ok.

So not really based on anything, just a thought. If when people die they go to the Force (yes?) then rather than being sentient maybe its will is based on the morality of those same beings.

So not really based on anything, just a thought. If when people die they go to the Force (yes?) then rather than being sentient maybe its will is based on the morality of those same beings.

Perhaps, but I gather that the Force was there first. The force was the source of all life, and if we consider creation and life to be inherently good then it was good before people were around.

Of course I think you could make a reasonable argument that life and/or creation is not inherently good.

The issue is... You can't apply someone's RL skepticism of 'Divine Right' to the Force. Because in the case of the Force we are told by an outside source what the objective truth is, so it is no more subject to skepticism then gravity is. It's part of the black and white nature of Star Wars at it's core.

There is a couple aspects to the force though. The living force and the cosmic force. The living force fed on the energy of living beings whereas the cosmic force fed on everything that had existed.

" All energy from the Living Force, from all things that have ever lived, feeds into the cosmic Force, binding everything and communicating to us through the midi-chlorians. Because of this, I can speak to you now. " ―The spirit of Qui-Gon Jinn, communing with Yoda

I'd say that if both aspects of the force feed on living and/or dead then they wouldn't be able to create life to start. Ultimately I think if the force was inherently good then having a dark side would serve no purpose. The dark side would have had to come from somewhere. If the force manifested from the energy of everything then the natural chaos of existence would dictate that the force could only ever be chaotic.

One thing I liked about Thrawn as a character was that he struck me as someone who truly believed that the Empire was the right answer to what the Galaxy needed... He wasn't the "kick a puppy" evil, but rather in a way was more akin to Deloris from the Harry Potter books, the Lawful Good villain. Someone who does evil things but honestly believes he's doing right things. I guess you could say an extreme version of the ends justifying the means.

Ok, so, I'm late to this topic, because I usually don't want to follow the rabbit trail, but I have been at my desk too much today and waiting on servers. Finally got around to this and got derailed almost instantly.

How do you consider Deloris Umbradge Lawful Good? She is very self-centered, enjoys seeing pain in others and definitely enjoys making people follow the letter of the law to the point of making the law her most important thing. I could buy Lawful Neutral, enjoying the benefits of Laws for herself and not really caring what it does to anyone else as long as she benefits from it. Totally a rules-lawyer. Maybe lawful evil, but there are as many things against that as there are against her being lawful good... though the quill of blood takes her a long way down the list. Also, I think all the cats in her plates are real cats... trapped forever in her display. I think that makes her worse... but I have no fact to back up this character trait.

Thrawn is a good "bad" guy. He is very difficult to place. He comes across as very thoughtful and possibly genteel. In a samuraii, go rin no sho, kind of way that think of peasants as acceptable methods to test sword sharpness. Is it culture? Is it cruelty? Is it evil?

Ok, back to page one to keep reading...

Ultimately I think if the force was inherently good then having a dark side would serve no purpose.

Well as I understand it, and I may very well be wrong. But George said that the dark side was never supposed to be there. That when Yoda talked about bringing balance to the force it was never intended to mean balance between the dark and light side.

But rather removing the corruption that was the dark side. But as I vaguely remember that he may of changed his mind about that?

But either way I'm leaving and won't likely be back until next week. But I really enjoyed the discussion so far.

One thing I liked about Thrawn as a character was that he struck me as someone who truly believed that the Empire was the right answer to what the Galaxy needed... He wasn't the "kick a puppy" evil, but rather in a way was more akin to Deloris from the Harry Potter books, the Lawful Good villain. Someone who does evil things but honestly believes he's doing right things. I guess you could say an extreme version of the ends justifying the means.

Ok, so, I'm late to this topic, because I usually don't want to follow the rabbit trail, but I have been at my desk too much today and waiting on servers. Finally got around to this and got derailed almost instantly.

How do you consider Deloris Umbradge Lawful Good? She is very self-centered, enjoys seeing pain in others and definitely enjoys making people follow the letter of the law to the point of making the law her most important thing. I could buy Lawful Neutral, enjoying the benefits of Laws for herself and not really caring what it does to anyone else as long as she benefits from it. Totally a rules-lawyer. Maybe lawful evil, but there are as many things against that as there are against her being lawful good... though the quill of blood takes her a long way down the list. Also, I think all the cats in her plates are real cats... trapped forever in her display. I think that makes her worse... but I have no fact to back up this character trait.

Thrawn is a good "bad" guy. He is very difficult to place. He comes across as very thoughtful and possibly genteel. In a samuraii, go rin no sho, kind of way that think of peasants as acceptable methods to test sword sharpness. Is it culture? Is it cruelty? Is it evil?

Ok, back to page one to keep reading...

On a side note, swords were considered peasant weapons and more emphasis was placed on bowman-ship and riding for samurai.

How do you consider Deloris Umbradge Lawful Good?

Because she does what she does for the greater good. She's not doing it just because it's the Law, Judge Dread is an example of that, to him there is no morality only what the legal code says.

Deloris however believes that the laws are morally correct and must be enforced for the greater good. Feel to disagree that's just my take on her.

Also, I think all the cats in her plates are real cats...

Not to get to far into HP fiction but... That world is filled with portraits that move and may contain part of the spirit of that person. So no having cats move around in a picture doesn't mean she trapped them.

Is it culture? Is it cruelty? Is it evil?

I see your point but I do in fact believe the samurai's case that was evil. Killing any living being simply to test how sharp a sword is, is evil. Again people are free to disagree but that's my stance.

That some individuals can demonstrate force abilities suggests nothing of the morality or sentience of the Force to any non-force sensitive.

But the thing is, because we're talking about a story here, we have a god's eye view, the farmer doesn't. I can objectively state that the Force is real and inherently good, because that's what the author has told me. That is honestly not something that can really be debated because that's one of the founding concepts of the universe as a whole.

At that point all discussion of the Force has to take that into account.

Jedi Mind Trick and subjecting will screams Sith, it's confusing to me how it was ever considered a "Jedi thing".

Well depends on. Is restraining someone who's trying to hurt themselves or others wrong? Did Obi-Wan really cause harm to those stormtroopers when he used the jedi mind trick to make them believe those weren't the droids they were looking for?

I do know that in many of the SW RPG's you ran a serious risk of dark side points if you abused that ability. How you used it and what your goal was, made a difference.

For example using it to get free drinks was bad, but using it so you didn't have to kill a guard was ok.

" RL religion lacks something the Force in Star Wars has. The Force can be objectively proven to exist, something we can't do with God. Denying the existence of the Force at least in the Republic would be akin to a flat earth."

My response was to the above quote which I interpreted as an in-universe POV.

Even with our bird's eye view the DCT/Lucas/Writer's intentions don't necessarily hold up. They can claim the Jedi and the Living Force are objectively good and written that way. That's fine, but then they have to deliver on that statement through their media. It isn't enough to make the statement Yoda is wise and just and a moral paragon of good. When he heads up an organization that indoctrinates children into a para-military religious organization that is bad no what you intended with the character. Saying it's good does not make it so.

Having a character directly responsible for the murder of thousands of people including children redeem himself of a lifetime immorality with a 5 second act of more murder is not justice. This is maybe more of a criticism of judeo-christian ideology and I certainly don't mean offense, but that kind of redemption is not "Objectively Good" just because Lucas says it is. It is entirely subjective whether or not you agree with those conditions for absolution or even if such a thing exists. Assuming the Living Force is sentient, it granting certain beings access to the Force and denying it to others is morally questionable. It creates an enormous power disparity and denies most beings what Force Sensitives consider to as or more vital than breathing. etc etc.

Can you tell I prefer the Unifying Force theory? Personally I think the Force should remain as mysterious and almost contradictory (Living, Unifying and other Force theories true all being true) as possible to avoid being trapped with these issues.

TL:DR A sentient Living Force faces all the problems, blame and moral questions "God" would. Questions Lucas or other YA authors certainly aren't equipped to answer.

Jedi Mind Trick and subjecting will screams Sith, it's confusing to me how it was ever considered a "Jedi thing".

Well depends on. Is restraining someone who's trying to hurt themselves or others wrong? Did Obi-Wan really cause harm to those stormtroopers when he used the jedi mind trick to make them believe those weren't the droids they were looking for?

I do know that in many of the SW RPG's you ran a serious risk of dark side points if you abused that ability. How you used it and what your goal was, made a difference.

For example using it to get free drinks was bad, but using it so you didn't have to kill a guard was ok.

I completely forgot this to address this point. Yes absolutely in my opinion. On my moral scale mind control is very far into the evil side. In fact save 1 or 2 edge case scenarios I would consider it an inherently evil ability. But I hold human free will and free/private thought in extremely high regard. Others do not and that's fine, but if I am still able to question Lucas's stance on the Jedi being morally and objectively good when they display such casual disregard for human free will.

The Jedi may consider it a necessary evil to attain some larger goal, but it is still evil. Actually the bigger problem is it doesn't seem the Jedi consider it all.

One thing I liked about Thrawn as a character was that he struck me as someone who truly believed that the Empire was the right answer to what the Galaxy needed... He wasn't the "kick a puppy" evil, but rather in a way was more akin to Deloris from the Harry Potter books, the Lawful Good villain. Someone who does evil things but honestly believes he's doing right things. I guess you could say an extreme version of the ends justifying the means.

Ok, so, I'm late to this topic, because I usually don't want to follow the rabbit trail, but I have been at my desk too much today and waiting on servers. Finally got around to this and got derailed almost instantly.

How do you consider Deloris Umbradge Lawful Good? She is very self-centered, enjoys seeing pain in others and definitely enjoys making people follow the letter of the law to the point of making the law her most important thing. I could buy Lawful Neutral, enjoying the benefits of Laws for herself and not really caring what it does to anyone else as long as she benefits from it. Totally a rules-lawyer. Maybe lawful evil, but there are as many things against that as there are against her being lawful good... though the quill of blood takes her a long way down the list. Also, I think all the cats in her plates are real cats... trapped forever in her display. I think that makes her worse... but I have no fact to back up this character trait.

Thrawn is a good "bad" guy. He is very difficult to place. He comes across as very thoughtful and possibly genteel. In a samuraii, go rin no sho, kind of way that think of peasants as acceptable methods to test sword sharpness. Is it culture? Is it cruelty? Is it evil?

Ok, back to page one to keep reading...

One of the reasons why I liked the EU besides the Vong and Chris Avellone's Kotor 2. Probably because it's very boring to consistently be faity tale evil or good, and that I find the force comparible to a form of magic that has its own will and alignment shift.

Unfortunately I also don't care for it, and find Jedi and the force to be one of the more irrelevant sides to Star Wars, much like DnD post 3.5. Hence why I woyld rock a White Necromancer in Pathfinder.

I will say, the way they seem to be going with the Force currently is much, much better than what they were doing in the old EU. Really adding back to the mythical aspects of it.

Mythical in what aspects? Fairy tale bad or angels and demons bull?

The Jedi may consider it a necessary evil to attain some larger goal, but it is still evil. Actually the bigger problem is it doesn't seem the Jedi consider it all.

In The Essential Guide to the Force, the moral issues of mind tricks do get discussed, by Yarael Poof.

Anti Heroes and Anti Villains are typically my favourite types of character in just about any fiction (no-one who's read my rants could possibly have seen that coming, amirite?)

I'd like to discuss the morality of the protagonists some more as well as the Empire. I agree that the Empire with it's list of corrupt individuals would qualify. But should maintain the likelihood that there are also good officers, good soldiers, good civilians and even good governors. The Empire does afterall stand for law and order, and the outer rim is rife with piracy. How much of that is propaganda and how much of that is fact can be discussed ad infinitum.

With the casts of Rebels we do see that no-one has any qualms about killing anyone without a face. We see theft of supplies etc - which is fine, guerrilla warfare is guerrilla warfare. We could really delve into how questionable it is to fight for a religion, and how much of the force is proven and myth to the supporting non force sensitive characters.

In Lords of the Sith , one of Cham Syndulla's people is basically a serial killer.

One way to distinguish religions is to classify them as exoteric or esoteric. Exoteric religions recognize some force outside humanity that is supposed to save or guide us, while esoteric religions look primarily inward for answers. Christianity is a good example of an exoteric religion, while Buddhism is clearly esoteric.

The ethics of esoteric religions seem morally subjective to those who are used to an exoteric worldview. In an esoteric religion, one strives for inner peace, balance and/or enlightenment. Being good towards others and treating them as you would want to be treated - what Karen Armstrong has called the 'golden rule' of all religiously inspired ethics - is a means of achieving that goal. So esoteric religions are not automatically morally subjectivist or relativist, because the path one has to walk to achieve peace can be very absolute. However, that path tends to be an immanent phenomenon, arising from us because of the way we are.

But exoteric religions tend to treat ethics as rules from a higher authority, or as some kind of purpose in the world around us: typically a transcendent force deciding what is good and what is not. This makes it possible to recognize an independent standard for how one should behave, and for what is good and what is evil, usually in a prescriptive sense.

In Star Wars, the Jedi are primarily esoteric. Their ethical objective is to not succumb to the dark side. Acting righteously is the means to do that, but it is remarkable that 'doing the right thing' for a Jedi is actually secondary to 'avoiding the darkness within oneself'. They can, in many situations, be glossed as the same thing, but the idea that one's deeds can be compared to some independent set of rules is not very important to the Jedi.

And because the whole philosophy of the Jedi is so important to Star Wars as a whole, you run into problems when looking at the story from a more exoteric perspective. If you compare the Empire to some kind of independent standard with regards to what could independently or even objectively considered 'an evil institution', you find that the evil is not overwhelmingly clear. The destruction of Alderaan is the biggest crime, and exchanging democracy for despotism also ranks high, but taken as a whole, the Empire is indeed 'just' a government of a lot of hard-working people. I think some EU writers have been troubled by this and added some Nazi parallels, like the discrimination and persecution of those considered 'not pure'. After all, if the Empire is not really evil to the core, then its war with the rebellion represents just another war with a morally ambiguous foundation, like almost all wars we know. But this is a mistake: it is simply wrong to judge the Empire by exoteric assumptions.

From an esoteric perspective, the Empire's evil is all too clear. It represents a force of darkness, the rebellion represents the light that tries to resist that force. This theme pervades Star Wars as it takes place on every scale. The crimes of the Empire serve to illustrate this even more, but they are not the definition of its evil, more a kind of overflow from the rotting forces within. For an esoteric religion, the opposite of enlightenment can be a state of being in which you are basically stuck, probably because of your own choices. The question becomes then how to get rid of that state, rather than to what degree something or someone is evil based on events.