The amusing thing is that acts of violence seemed to always strengthen the Sith. Mace uses violence against the Sith, and that act pushes Anakin to joining them and justifies the Sith narrative of a Jedi rebellion. Obi Wan uses violence against the Sith and creates Vader. Yoda uses violence against the Sith and strengthens Palaptines power and the anti Jedi narrative. They keep insisting that the Sith need to be dealt with with violence, going so far as to drll that into Lukes head. Yet the one thing that actually works is when Luke rejects the violence mantra and instead opts for non violence.

It would appear that while Yoda may have needed to act, that had he put some more thought into it, a non violent solution likely would have saved the galaxy.

29 minutes ago, Kael said:

While I may disagree with Yoda being obligated to destroy the Sith I would like to point out that even if such an obligation were true, it would have no bearing on Conflict gains. Such an obligation wouldn't negate you gaining Conflict.

Also no bearing on whether or not one gains Conflict. It is not an excuse to not gain any.

That was hours ago. That one act isn't carte blanche for violent actions against him. And while Yoda is under no moral obligation to talk it out he does have to at least try a non violent means first. That maybe talking it out. That may be something else entirely. So long as non violence was his first action.

Luke proves that violence isn't the only way to defeat the Sith. He defeated them with love. Violence wasn't the only answer. It was jus the easiest.

Violence was not his only option. It was only the easiest option. Luke proves to us that it isn't. And there are plenty of Legends material that also highlights this concept. Yoda doesn't even explore the idea. Which is sad.

But all things considered, he could have gained Conflict. To argue that violence was the only way is to ignore the fact that violence wasn't how the Sith, or Palpatine, was actually defeated. Violence against the Sith failed time and time again to stop them. So maybe the Jedi are wrong on the matter. Being how it was non violence that ultimately stops them.

Palpatine's actions were ongoing, not simple "hours ago". And in the case of taking on Palpatine, yes, violence was the only option. The ony reason why Luke was able to find a nonviolent solution was specfically because of his relationship to his father. He was able to reach the good in Anakin. There was no good in Palpatine to reach. Negotiation, was not an option. Appealing to Palpatine's "better nature" was not an option. Palptatine was unadulterated Evil with a captial "E". And an ongoing threat to the Republic and Jedi, who was not going to stop until every Jedi was dead and the galaxy was under his thumb. So yes, Yoda was fully in the right, both morally, and obligatory to try and kill Palpatine. There was no other option.

17 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

I really am getting a kick out of tramp changing his views to suit his arguments in each conversation on these forums. Here, he talks about yoda having a moral obligation and in the other hotly debated topic, he says that jedi are not creatures of morals.

It can't be both.

When you actually understand what that quote means, yes, it can. On the face of it, it does seem like a contradiction, but as the source itself goes into further details, there's a little more to it.

1 minute ago, Kael said:

The amusing thing is that acts of violence seemed to always strengthen the Sith. Mace uses violence against the Sith, and that act pushes Anakin to joining them and justifies the Sith narrative of a Jedi rebellion. Obi Wan uses violence against the Sith and creates Vader. Yoda uses violence against the Sith and strengthens Palaptines power and the anti Jedi narrative. They keep insisting that the Sith need to be dealt with with violence, going so far as to drll that into Lukes head. Yet the one thing that actually works is when Luke rejects the violence mantra and instead opts for non violence.

It would appear that while Yoda may have needed to act, that had he put some more thought into it, a non violent solution likely would have saved the galaxy.

No. Not at that time and not in that situation. As I said, Luke was only able to do it because of his connection to Vader, and the fact that Vader did indeed still have good in him. Palpatine did not. There was no reaching the good in Palpatine, nor negotiation. It was either him or the Jedi; His domination of the galaxy or freedom for the galaxy. There was no letting him live. Even Luke knew this. Palpatine had to die, Vader didn't.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Palpatine's actions were ongoing, not simple "hours ago".

That's an extremely weak excuse man.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And in the case of taking on Palpatine, yes, violence was the only option. The ony reason why Luke was able to find a nonviolent solution was specfically because of his relationship to his father. He was able to reach the good in Anakin. There was no good in Palpatine to reach.

This just shows that Luke's method wouldn't have worked for Yoda. That doesn't show that violence was the only way. Only that Yoda may have needed a different approach.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Appealing to Palpatine's "better nature" was not an option.

You're arguing an all or none position here that simply isn't true. The method to defeating Palpatine may have required actions unrelated to directly confronting Palpatine himself. You're assuming that the key to defeating the man was in fightin him up front. This is not the case though, as Luke highlights.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There was no other option.

Untrue. Luke proves this premise wrong entirely.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. Not at that time and not in that situation. As I said, Luke was only able to do it because of his connection to Vader, and the fact that Vader did indeed still have good in him. Palpatine did not. There was no reaching the good in Palpatine, nor negotiation. It was either him or the Jedi; His domination of the galaxy or freedom for the galaxy. There was no letting him live. Even Luke knew this. Palpatine had to die, Vader didn't.

You're arguing from a false premise, that Luke's method was the only method. Luke's method worked for him. Yoda would have needed a different approach to be sure. The point I was highlighting though was that violence strengthened the Sith. Yoda attempted violence and doomed the galaxy to decades of Sith rule. While there may not have been any way to reach the good in Palpatine it may have been the case that they needed to work around him. Present a different narrative.

There is more than one way to defeat someone. Violence is just one tool. The easiest. It clearly did not work in Palpatines eventual defeat. The Morality system assumes that violence is ok once other methods have been explored. Yoda opts to use violence first, and it makes things worse. Who knows who short Palpatines reign could have been had he been willing to take some time and think over what to do.

Just because he needed to respond to the situation did not mean he needed to do so right then and there.

7 minutes ago, Kael said:

That's an extremely weak excuse man.

This just shows that Luke's method wouldn't have worked for Yoda. That doesn't show that violence was the only way. Only that Yoda may have needed a different approach.

You're arguing an all or none position here that simply isn't true. The method to defeating Palpatine may have required actions unrelated to directly confronting Palpatine himself. You're assuming that the key to defeating the man was in fightin him up front. This is not the case though, as Luke highlights.

Untrue. Luke proves this premise wrong entirely.

You're arguing from a false premise, that Luke's method was the only method. Luke's method worked for him. Yoda would have needed a different approach to be sure. The point I was highlighting though was that violence strengthened the Sith. Yoda attempted violence and doomed the galaxy to decades of Sith rule. While there may not have been any way to reach the good in Palpatine it may have been the case that they needed to work around him. Present a different narrative.

There is more than one way to defeat someone. Violence is just one tool. The easiest. It clearly did not work in Palpatines eventual defeat. The Morality system assumes that violence is ok once other methods have been explored. Yoda opts to use violence first, and it makes things worse. Who knows who short Palpatines reign could have been had he been willing to take some time and think over what to do.

Just because he needed to respond to the situation did not mean he needed to do so right then and there.

No. To stop Palpatine (not Vader) Violence was the only option. No matter who did it, someone was going to have to kill Palpatine. There was no getting around that. In the end it was Vader who killed Palpatine. So Viloence was still the ultimate answer. Palpatine had to die.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. To stop Palpatine (not Vader) Violence was the only option. No matter who did it, someone was going to have to kill Palpatine. There was no getting around that. In the end it was Vader who killed Palpatine. So Viloence was still the ultimate answer. Palpatine had to die.

Based on what? I mean... I agree that he needed to be stopped... but are you basing your analysis on opinion? On your application of foresight? Has the Force told you? You're declaring this as absolute truth, but the fact is, we don't know. Maybe there was a way to stop him using non-violent means, and we'll never know because no one in the films could think of it in time.

1 minute ago, Dunefarble said:

Based on what? I mean... I agree that he needed to be stopped... but are you basing your analysis on opinion? On your application of foresight? Has the Force told you? You're declaring this as absolute truth, but the fact is, we don't know. Maybe there was a way to stop him using non-violent means, and we'll never know because no one in the films could think of it in time.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

#imsorryihadtodoit

#itwasthewilloftheforcethatimakepuns

Just now, GroggyGolem said:

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

#imsorryihadtodoit

#itwasthewilloftheforcethatimakepuns

I can't like something multiple times, so....

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. To stop Palpatine (not Vader) Violence was the only option. No matter who did it, someone was going to have to kill Palpatine. There was no getting around that. In the end it was Vader who killed Palpatine. So Viloence was still the ultimate answer. Palpatine had to die.

Palpatine may have needed to die. Direct violence against him however did not work. If Luke had used direct violence he would have failed. He walked a different path, turned his father to defeat Palpatine. You're so focused on Palpatine needing to die that you've closed yourself off to the myriad of other methods that could have made things better. You're not seeing the forest.

Again, in order to not gain Conflict you need to explore the non violent option first. Assuming that someone has to die is what gains folks Conflict.

However violence was not the ultimate answer. You're confusing Papatine's eventual demise for how he was to be taken down. Luke didn't use violence to defeat Palpatine. Vader may have killed him, but Luke defeated and stopped him. And Luke didn't use violence to do it.

The end of the movies shows your premise to be false.

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Based on what? I mean... I agree that he needed to be stopped... but are you basing your analysis on opinion? On your application of foresight? Has the Force told you? You're declaring this as absolute truth, but the fact is, we don't know. Maybe there was a way to stop him using non-violent means, and we'll never know because no one in the films could think of it in time.

No. There wasn't. Palpatine was the culmination of the Sith's plans for domination of the galaxy. Palpatine was the ultimate Evil. George Lucas specifically patterned him and his rise to power after Adolf Hitler. He was pure, unadulterated evil with two goals: the total annihilation of the Jedi Order, and total domination of the Galaxy in the service of the Dark Side. You cannot stop such a being without violence. It is impossible.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. There wasn't. Palpatine was the culmination of the Sith's plans for domination of the galaxy. Palpatine was the ultimate Evil. George Lucas specifically patterned him and his rise to power after Adolf Hitler. He was pure, unadulterated evil with two goals: the total annihilation of the Jedi Order, and total domination of the Galaxy in the service of the Dark Side. You cannot stop such a being without violence. It is impossible.

You're such a Sith and you can't even see it. It makes me laugh.

1 minute ago, Kael said:

Palpatine may have needed to die. Direct violence against him however did not work. If Luke had used direct violence he would have failed. He walked a different path, turned his father to defeat Palpatine. You're so focused on Palpatine needing to die that you've closed yourself off to the myriad of other methods that could have made things better. You're not seeing the forest.

Again, in order to not gain Conflict you need to explore the non violent option first. Assuming that someone has to die is what gains folks Conflict.

However violence was not the ultimate answer. You're confusing Papatine's eventual demise for how he was to be taken down. Luke didn't use violence to defeat Palpatine. Vader may have killed him, but Luke defeated and stopped him. And Luke didn't use violence to do it.

The end of the movies shows your premise to be false.

Not necessarily, Not when "non violence" means knowingly allowing evil to be committed or continue to be. Luke was in a unique situation with a very unique option that Yoda did not have available. Yoda had only two options: Let Palpatine live, and allow him to wipe out the Jedi and plunge the galaxy further into darkness, or he could try to kill Palpatine, and hopefully save what remained of the Jedi and the galaxy. Those were his only options at that time.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. There wasn't. Palpatine was the culmination of the Sith's plans for domination of the galaxy. Palpatine was the ultimate Evil. George Lucas specifically patterned him and his rise to power after Adolf Hitler. He was pure, unadulterated evil with two goals: the total annihilation of the Jedi Order, and total domination of the Galaxy in the service of the Dark Side. You cannot stop such a being without violence. It is impossible.

What if people didn't follow his orders?

Like, just completely ignored him?

Palpatine didn't enact the vast majority of his violence personally. He couldn't be everywhere at once, that's why he needed the Clones. What if, instead of confronting Palpatine directly, Yoda had focused on getting the truth out to the people of the Republic? Erode his popular support?

You have a severely limited and violent way of thinking. You're basically a Sith, complete with red lightsaber and scantily-clad apprentice (Possibly NSFW).

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. There wasn't. Palpatine was the culmination of the Sith's plans for domination of the galaxy. Palpatine was the ultimate Evil. George Lucas specifically patterned him and his rise to power after Adolf Hitler. He was pure, unadulterated evil with two goals: the total annihilation of the Jedi Order, and total domination of the Galaxy in the service of the Dark Side. You cannot stop such a being without violence. It is impossible.

It's also funny to me that you reference this when Hitler wasn't even 'defeated' as you're describing. He committed suicide. It wasn't someone else's violence against him, it was his own corruption and lack of soul that did him in. If he hadn't, he may very well have been brought to trial. Or an Allied soldier would have shot him (rightfully) and maybe taken a point of conflict for denying the world a chance to put Hitler on trial for his crimes.

It's the same reason Luke wouldn't receive conflict for destorying the death star, millions of people died in that action but the force DOESN'T CARE about millions of lives, it is a living being that only cares about maintaining it's own health, the darkside and by extention the deathstar is an aggressive cancer that needed to be purged, thus those millions in working on the star destroyer had already signed their death warrant, because there was no choice. The Deathstar had to be destroyed to give the force chance of recovery from a weapon that could destroy billions of lives. The force really doesn't care about people but it does care about the dark side corruption. Relatively speaking destroying the death star was a very noble thing to do as it was a weapon that killed billions.

I do believe that Palpatine could only be killed. The only way to deal with a sith was to destory them; the Jedi's main issue is that they walked streight into his war plan and accepted an army that seemed to appear out of nowhere, eventually becoming dependant on it. The issue was that no one actually knew that palpatine was a sith until much too late. So claiming hypothetical examples to discredit palpatine just wouldn't work, the Jedi didn't have any conclusive evidence to identify him as a sith and even if they approached him more sensitively; it was still too late. Palpatine was going to cause order 66 at some point and Yoda was commanding the defence of the wookie home world; Mace Windu was the most senior Jedi figure present at the time; the issue was that he was probably selected by palpatine for a reason.

Just because Luke dealt with it one way ultimately, resulting in a copout of a victory doesn't mean it's the only way it could have gone down. Just the Jedi had no compassion, they were just instruments of a corrupt republic.

5 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

What if people didn't follow his orders?

Like, just completely ignored him?

Palpatine didn't enact the vast majority of his violence personally. He couldn't be everywhere at once, that's why he needed the Clones. What if, instead of confronting Palpatine directly, Yoda had focused on getting the truth out to the people of the Republic? Erode his popular support?

You have a severely limited and violent way of thinking. You're basically a Sith, complete with red lightsaber and scantily-clad apprentice (Possibly NSFW).

Remember, at the time that photo was taken, even several Jedi had red lightsabers. And, the only reason why I did use that for my costume is because I couldn't swap blades, like I wanted to. so I currently use a saphire blue one.

4 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

It's also funny to me that you reference this when Hitler wasn't even 'defeated' as you're describing. He committed suicide. It wasn't someone else's violence against him, it was his own corruption and lack of soul that did him in. If he hadn't, he may very well have been brought to trial. Or an Allied soldier would have shot him (rightfully) and maybe taken a point of conflict for denying the world a chance to put Hitler on trial for his crimes.

There's some evidence out there that this was not the case. But that's neither here nor there. If it weren't for the fact that the allies were essentially on his proverbial doorstep, having fought a brutal war of attrition, he wouldn't have been stopped. The same with Papatine. It took a war to defeat him. It took violence to stop him and free the galaxy. Yoda had that same quandary. He only had two options, try and kill Palpatine, or let Palpatine destroy the Jedi and enslave the galaxy in Darkness. In the end, he failed. And as a result, Palpatine did plunge the galaxy into darkness for over twenty years. No, Violence is never "good", but sometimes it is the only option. to further good. Jedi are not pacifists.

17 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You cannot stop such a being without violence. It is impossible.

That's not even remotely true.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not necessarily, Not when "non violence" means knowingly allowing evil to be committed or continue to be.

I don't see this exception to violence anywhere in the Morality rules.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Luke was in a unique situation with a very unique option that Yoda did not have available.

Luke was in a unique situation. That only proves that Luke's solution would have only worked for Luke. It doesn't show that other options weren't available. Just that Yoda couldn't do it Luke's way. Still could have tried something else though. And to avoid Conflict he was obligated to at least try.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yoda had only two options: Let Palpatine live, and allow him to wipe out the Jedi and plunge the galaxy further into darkness, or he could try to kill Palpatine, and hopefully save what remained of the Jedi and the galaxy. Those were his only options at that time.

Those were the only options he saw. That doesn't make them the only options available. Being Conflict free requires a higher standard. Also the violence option pretty much made certain the non that the Jedi was wiped out and it did in fact plunge the galaxy further into darkness.

2 minutes ago, LordBritish said:

I do believe that Palpatine could only be killed.

This may be true. No one denies this. What is being talked about is not resorting to violence as the first and only response. The Force accepts that people die. It ust shouldn't be the first thing you do.

3 minutes ago, LordBritish said:

The only way to deal with a sith was to destory them

Trying to destroy them via violence has only ever made them stronger. Maybe the Jedi should have tried other options like Luke does?

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The same with Papatine. It took a war to defeat him. It took violence to stop him and free the galaxy.

Violence did not stop him though. You're confusing his eventual demise for how he was stopped.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yoda had that same quandary. He only had two options,

Nope. He only saw two.

Just now, LordBritish said:

I do believe that Palpatine could only be killed. The only way to deal with a sith was to destory them; the Jedi's main issue is that they walked streight into his war plan and accepted an army that seemed to appear out of nowhere, eventually becoming dependant on it.

Exactly: They relied on violence.

Kael already pointed it out: every time the Jedi turned to violence to destroy the Sith, they only made the Sith more powerful.

• Attack Darth Maul? Now Anakin has been brought to Palpatine's attention and is without Qui-gonn's guidance.
• Accept the Clone Army to fight Separatists? Straight into Palpatine's hands.
• Attack Dooku? Now Anakin's been maimed and has a burning hatred for him.
• Attack Dooku again? Well, this time it works, but his death only serves to push Anakin closer to the edge.
• Attack Palpatine? Now there's justification for the eradication of the Jedi in the eyes of the people and Anakin is fully in his hands.
• Attack Palpatine again? Nothing is accomplished but further driving home the anti-Jedi hunt.
• Attack Darth Vader? He gets put in a suit that only makes him stronger and the one woman who had any chance of getting through to him is dead.
• Attack Darth Vader? Luke gets his hand cut off and emotionally traumatized.

When it came down to attack Vader and Palpatine yet again...Luke said no. And that lone refusal to violence ended the Sith once and for all, where ten thousand Jedi and all the violence in the galaxy could not.

Funny thing, the will of the Force.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, Violence is never "good", but sometimes it is the only option. to further good. Jedi are not pacifists.

According to how Conflict and Morality s constructed for this game, viewing violence as the only option nets you Conflict. It doesn't require pacifism. It requires a willingness to see beyond just violence.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

...with Papatine. It took a war to defeat him. It took violence to stop him and free the galaxy. Yoda had that same quandary. He only had two options, try and kill Palpatine, or let Palpatine destroy the Jedi and enslave the galaxy in Darkness. In the end, he failed.

Yeah, but the Jedi didn't fight the war. They didn't need to, in the end. The regular citizens, the rebellion fought the war, because that was their duty. As Mace said, the Jedi were keepers of peace, not soldiers. Their duty was to stop the Sith, not kill the Sith. Was it an option? Yes. Was it the only option? No.

1 minute ago, Kael said:

That's not even remotely true.

I don't see this exception to violence anywhere in the Morality rules.

Luke was in a unique situation. That only proves that Luke's solution would have only worked for Luke. It doesn't show that other options weren't available. Just that Yoda couldn't do it Luke's way. Still could have tried something else though. And to avoid Conflict he was obligated to at least try.

Those were the only options he saw. That doesn't make them the only options available. Being Conflict free requires a higher standard. Also the violence option pretty much made certain the non that the Jedi was wiped out and it did in fact plunge the galaxy further into darkness.

This may be true. No one denies this. What is being talked about is not resorting to violence as the first and only response. The Force accepts that people die. It ust shouldn't be the first thing you do.

Trying to destroy them via violence has only ever made them stronger. Maybe the Jedi should have tried other options like Luke does?

Violence did not stop him though. You're confusing his eventual demise for how he was stopped.

Nope. He only saw two.

No. There were only two options. And the violence was already initiated by Palpatine so, Yoda had no moral obligation to "negotiate". Palpatine had to be stopped, the sooner the better. They were in a war for survival, Survival of the Jedi Order, survival of the Republic, survival of the galaxy. And, yes, violence did stop him. It took Vader killing him to stop him and put an end to his schemes. It was his demise that stopped him. As long as Palpatine lived, there was no stopping him. He was too powerful and too evil.

2 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Their duty was to stop the Sith, not kill the Sith. Was it an option? Yes. Was it the only option? No.

And Luke proved the right of this statement when he didn't kill Palpatine, but instead threw his lightsaber away.

Realize that. Luke threw away his greatest weapon in the face of Palpatine, because he knew violence was not the correct answer, not from a Jedi.

Quote

No. There were only two options.

You can say this until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Also, nice dodge on the scantily-clad apprentice thing.

5 minutes ago, Kael said:

According to how Conflict and Morality s constructed for this game, viewing violence as the only option nets you Conflict. It doesn't require pacifism. It requires a willingness to see beyond just violence.

Not when it actually is the only option. When there is no way to avoid violence, one way or the other. Not when you know poeples lives and freedoms are at stake.

1 minute ago, Benjan Meruna said:

And Luke proved the right of this statement when he didn't kill Palpatine, but instead threw his lightsaber away.

Realize that. Luke threw away his greatest weapon in the face of Palpatine, because he knew violence was not the correct answer, not from a Jedi.

You can say this until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. Also, nice dodge on the scantily-clad apprentice thing.

What about her? She's a Zeltron.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not when it actually is the only option. When there is no way to avoid violence, one way or the other. Not when you know poeples lives and freedoms are at stake.

And then? You take the conflict of breaking your Order's beliefs for the sake of the greater good. You accept the responsibility of your actions, because they were the best you could do and the only way you can sleep at night. You don't live in a bubble of 'well, morality doesn't count here, because...'

Because he's evil, because she's Zeltron, because I'm a good person so my actions are always justified.

That's what sociopaths are.