No, I don't buy it

[smascrns]

You place a good question but I don't buy your answer for a very good reason: The Start Wars implicitly answers the question in a better way. What's that answer?

Suspention of desbelief. Star Wars is about action. It starts the moment the moral dilema has been solved. The Star Wars hero is right, and he knows he is right. He has the Force with him. Why does this make him right? It doesn't matter. Star Wars is not about answering such questions. The person reading the books, seing the movies or playing the games set in the Star Wars universe know that it is not about defining the Force or the moral, political and social implications of its existance. It's about doing the right thing with the certainty of who is the right side and who is in the bad side. Either the person is able to accept this and suspend his desbelief in such a black and white universe, or that person should avoid Star Wars all together. There are other fictional and game worlds that will serve his tastes better.

Besides, trying to address those moral, ethical, political, social questions is a mistake. It does not solve the problem and it creates other reasons for desbelief. For instance, let's look at your answers. They suit you but do they suit other people? I know for sure that they don't suit me. For instance I don't like an answer that turns the Force into "energy field". An "energy field" with "desires". (What is it, a sentient entity? An individual? A god?) I don't like to look at the opposition between the Force and the Dark Side in terms of selfishness. Why these sentiments and not others?
Neither do I like your explanation for the mutual support between Jedi and Republic. You present the Jedi as super humans (they have something the other humans don't have, the ability to perceive and use the Force), a different, superior caste or species. Now, why would they not take the power? Why would they work within the republic in the terms you suggest? Actually this makes no sense. What would be rational would be for the Jedi to be in charge of the society, on top of it, above the rest. Once more, I'm better off without your rationalization since it doesn't allow me to suspend my desbelief in the Star Wars universe.

The truth is that for someone like me it is harder to suspend my desbelief with your way of rationalizing the Force than it is to suspend it without any rationalization. I can perfectly see the inconsistencies in the Star Wars universe but I can also see that that's not the issue. My entertainment with that universe does not come from its coherence and the answer to metaphysical questions, it comes from the action and the adventure. From this perspective I'm much better off without your questions. I know I'll never be able to answer those questions in a satisfatory way because it's impossible. The Star Wars universe is intrinsically incoherent and there's no way to make it coherent at that level.

[Old Geezer]

I agree with the above poster.

Star Wars is pulp, and that particular kind of pulp that involves "Good Guys Vs Bad Guys".


Look at the very first movie intro.

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

"It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from their hidden base, have scored their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire".

There.

That's all you need to know.

The Rebellion is good, and the Empire is bad, and the Jedi are good, and the Sith are bad, because it is one of the baseline assumptions of the universe. "Moral Ambiguity" and "Star Wars" do not belong together, except with a "NOT" somewhere in there.

This entire column gets a big fat old "Missed the Point Entirely" point from me.

[Tom_K]

For my own solution, thee are plenty of problems and holes that I would think through before running it. The main thin I was aiming for was that you need some sort of ethical philosophy to be able to work on answering questions like the ones raised. Why shouldn’t Jedi be the master race, after all? (Which is a scary and cool villain idea, by the way.) But I think that if you are running Star Wars as a GM, you can’t just accept the your players are the Good Guys, because you are going to be awarding dark side points. You are the ultimate universal arbiter of objective evil, and I don’t think you can do that in a fair way unless you come up with some sort of metaphysical ethics.

So, your party’s scoundrel is sitting in a bar and a Rodian bounty hunter starts talking about claiming the bounty on him. He thinks the Rodian is about to fire, and so he fires first. Was that a dark side point? If you said yes, you can bet your player is going to complain. Or, a major NPC who runs a city agrees to turn over the party to the Empire to keep that city safe. Is that a dark side point? Also, a major theme of Star Wars is the battle between good and evil within the heroes themselves. Especially with players, you can’t assume that being the protagonist makes them the good guys.

Finally, the lines between good and evil are clear-cut in the rebellion era, but less so the many other eras you can play in. Why not be Separatists? What do you do if your charismatic Separatist NPC actually converts the party? Should the New Republic sign a treaty with the remnants of the Empire to stop the war? People will suffer in the Imperial states but lives will be saved with peace, so what’s the right thing to do? And because Star Wars is an objectively moral universe that the GM plays referee for (with the power to reward or punish), they need some sense of what defines dark side actions as wrong- especially when the players throw you an ethical curveball. Which, in my experience, they always do.

That’s just my opinion, anyway.

[fmitchell]

Let me be the first (only?) to say that I enjoyed Clerical Errors #13. I for one am tired of worlds of absolute Good and Evil. Kill the Sith; they're evil, and we're good. Kill the Orcs; they're evil, and we're good. Raid the ships of the Spanish Main; we're pirates but we're still The Good Guys. Kill the heathens ... you get the idea.

George Lucas is a clumsy writer and an even clumsier philosopher, so someone playing in the Star Wars universe that hates absolutes has a lot of work to do. I always thought of the basic philosophy as a sort of bastardized samurai Zen Buddhism, with non-denominational Western morality wedged in. So, "search your feelings" really means achieving a state of No-Mind where the answer is immediately obvious, whereas anger is "bad" because it, like other passions, prevents the state of No-Mind and generally makes you do stupid and immoral things.

As for "only a Sith deals in absolutes", the strangely absolutist and demonstrably false statement from Obi-Wan: the preceding line was Anakin's "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." In context, it plays into the Everyone vs. Self theme developed in the article. True Jedi know that ultimately they are only one part of the Force, and as such they cannot comprehend its entirety. Jedi encourage democracy, cooperation, and understanding because every perspective is valuable, and every Jedi has more to learn. To a Sith, his way is the only way; only his beliefs matter, only his perspective is important, only his will should be done.

In this interpretation, then, Jedi usually (but not always) do good, and Sith sooner or later fall into evil. A True Jedi might do a minor evil, such as kill in self-defense or during wartime, but only if he sees no other way to serve the greater good. A Jedi will continuously assess the effect of his actions, and will strive to undo, or at least to atone for, a wrong he may commit. Conversely, even a Sith who thinks he's a champion of Justice will do evil; his ego and his passions blind him to the harm the pursuit of his ideal will inflict. Where a Jedi would make amends, a Sith would make excuses, until he reaches the point where he no longer cares at all.

Anyway, that's my attempt to reconcile the morality of the movies with something approximating the real world.

[Old Geezer]

"I'm going to ignore all the assumptions of the setting and then bitch mightily about how it doesn't work. Waah waah waah waah waah."

If you don't like good and evil as absolutes, don't play Star Wars. There's plenty of other SF out there.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's more fun to shit your pants and whine than to actually find a game you like.

[fmitchell]

"I'm going to ignore all the assumptions of the setting and then bitch mightily about how it doesn't work. Waah waah waah waah waah."

Yeah, whatever. Even Star Wars fans hate Star Wars (http://www.jivemagazine.com/column.php?pid=3381).

Star Wars was amazing when I was 11 years old, but even at 18 I cringed at the writing, and the muddled thinking behind the writing. Its staying power is in part based on nostalgia, but mainly because it tapped into powerful themes and metaphors (which Lucas then fumbled, especially in the recent trilogy). The notion of the Jedi Knights is alluring, and their shadows the Sith hold a horrifying fascination. The Force, light sabers, and the struggle between an oppressive and illegitimate Empire and rebels trying to reinstate an earlier Republic have a certain resonance.

But then we come to those precious "assumptions", which to a grownup mind sound not only puerile but inconsistent. It's more than just a philosophical quibble: as the author stated, how do you award Dark Side points, given that "going to the Dark Side" is one of said assumptions? In a role-playing game, when we take on the role of a Jedi, how are we supposed to act toward people who aren't trying to kill us but aren't helping us either? If a GM dares to plan encounters not involving stormtroopers, Sith Lords, gangsters, or bloody great monsters -- what nerve! -- how should the NPCs behave?

So excuse us for trying to mold the source material into something we'd actually want to play. Excuse us for not treading the exact same ground as George Lucas and worshiping every inch of it. Excuse us for not playing the game exactly the way "purists" want us to.

Star Wars is a series that almost dares you to think up something better.

[cfc]

So excuse us for trying to mold the source material into something we'd actually want to play. Excuse us for not treading the exact same ground as George Lucas and worshiping every inch of it. Excuse us for not playing the game exactly the way "purists" want us to.You mean, thinking for yourself? That's clearly inexcusable...

[Belac]

I liked this article.

And I do think that the Force needs to be explored in a bit more detail, because it seems like every new edition of the RPG (which happens to strongly affect the novels) redefines it and pisses off players who want Force powers. In the d20 Revised Core Rules, for example, if I recall correctly, Negate Energy is a Dark Side power because it gets rid of energy and that's negative, even though that has absolutely nothing to do with anything the movies say about the Dark Side, and it's used a lot by Lightsiders. Not only that, but Force Grip/Force Choke was usually listed as a Dark Side power even though it was the very first technique we see Luke using once he becomes a Jedi Knight in Return of the Jedi. (I'm always amazed that nobody points this out in arguments about Force Grip. If you can't recall, it's when he's entering Jabba's palace and chokes a guard to make him get out of the way.)

In addition, I don't think Star Wars is supposed to be as "black and white" as is often assumed. "Only the Sith deal in absolutes" is a strong statement to the contrary, as is Mace Windu's attempted assassination of Senator Palpatine and Anakin's argument that Mace was breaking Jedi and Republic law. The expanded universe has lots of shades of gray, and is the basis for the RPGs as much (if not more) as the movies themselves.

Besides, some of us like Star Wars for the Wild West gunslingers, World War II dogfights, robot cow and chicken tanks, speeder bike races through forests, weird aliens, swashbuckling swordfights, and copious amounts of explosions. Why is it "badwrongfun" for us to want a more complex morality system, or at least a simplistic one that doesn't get in the way? I always found the morality lectures in Star Wars to be the most boring part, and would have much preferred either a more complex and interesting system (so that the lectures wouldn't have been so annoying) or one that actually supported the style of the movies (since the movies are about blowing stuff up and killing bad guys the Jedi Code says you can't blow stuff up and kill bad guys, except when Luke uses the Force to do that on the first Death Star.)

[smascrns]

For my own solution, thee are plenty of problems and holes that I would think through before running it. The main thin I was aiming for was that you need some sort of ethical philosophy to be able to work on answering questions like the ones raised. Why shouldn’t Jedi be the master race, after all?
Well, in supers comics and games you face exactly the same question: Why isn't Superman the master of Earth? Why doesn't him use his powers to solve all problems in fractions of second? Or the X-men? Or Spiderman? The answer is simple: They don't do it because they don't. There's no way to rationalize an explanation because there's no possible rational answer to that question. Superhumans (and the Jedi are just superhumans in space) don't take power in pulp or comics for a very simple meta-setting question: That's a less interesting scenario to make. It is devoid of drama, action, and conflict. That's all.
But I think that if you are running Star Wars as a GM, you can’t just accept the your players are the Good Guys, because you are going to be awarding dark side points.
But that's not a problem with the Star Wars universe. That's a problem with the Star Wars game. It's a similar issue to the endlessly discussed alignment system in D&D, and there's just no way to make it work - unless one accepts the core premise that whoever is in the good side is good, no matter what the character does. If you don't accept this premise you will never be able to solve the contradictions between pre-defined moral stats and character behavior. It's better to just ditch the whole dark side points.
Jedi encourage democracy, cooperation, and understanding because every perspective is valuable, and every Jedi has more to learn. To a Sith, his way is the only way; only his beliefs matter, only his perspective is important, only his will should be done.
Well, as you said you see "the basic philosophy as a sort of bastardized samurai Zen Buddhism, with non-denominational Western morality wedged in". That's not the only aspect of the Star Wars universe that's heavily inspired by real world elements. Actually for my European eyes the Star Wars universe is just the US of America in Space (Opera). The first movie places this very clearly by having the good Americans fighting the bad Nazis (with shades of Soviets), aesthetics included. That's the reason why the Jedi fight for a Republic and for democracy, because they are Americans in Space (TM), thus it's usless to try to find a more philosophicaly profound reason, that's how one can "attempt to reconcile the morality of the movies with something approximating the real world".
But then we come to those precious "assumptions", which to a grownup mind sound not only puerile but inconsistent.
Do they? All you need to remember is that Star Wars is USA in Space and it starts to sound a little less puerile or inconsistent, for a very simple reason: The way the US sees its place in the world and the way it deals with anything outside its borders is as puerile as the fight of good vs. evil in Star Wars.
In a role-playing game, when we take on the role of a Jedi, how are we supposed to act toward people who aren't trying to kill us but aren't helping us either?
Try "those who aren't with us are against us", George Bush style not that long ago.

And that's probably the only way to deal with the moral, ethical, political and social issues raised by the Star Wars universe. Just consider that it is the USA in Space and handle these issues in true American way. Start with, "whe are right and whoever does not agree with us is wrong". Next include all types of righteous groups, each one fighting is own pet war based on absolutist moral standards; and voilà, there's your consistent moral system for Star Wars.

(Note: What I wrote is not an attack on the USA and should not be read as such.)

[torbenm]

I liked the beginning of the article for exposing the (rather obvious) contradictions in the SW universe, but I, like others, was somewhat disappointed with the supposed fix.

One part of that is the assumption that non-sentient animals are naturally part of the light side of the Force, but humans can reject it by doing selfish actions which, ultimately, turns them to the dark side.

Non-sentient animals (and most sentient ones) are inherently selfish, so why should acting selfishly suddenly make you turn a way from a principle that is inherent in animals? That doesn't make sense.

Let us start out with the statement that the Force binds all life together. The question is now whether the Force powers life, life powers the Force, of if both are interdependent, in the sense that living beings both take and give power to the Force, and by increasing either life or Force, you increase the other.

If we assume the latter, a "good" Jedi would not take more from the Force than he gives or indirectly causes to be given, while a "bad" Jedi would take more than he gives. In other words, the "light" side is about achieving your purpose (which is, ultimately, empowerment of life and the Force) with minimal power drawn from the Force, while the "dark" side is about taking power from the Force without consideration of balancing this with giving to the Force.

So, "dark" acts are removing life (and, consequently, Force), taking excessive amounts of power from the Force, not giving to the Force (by not enabling life), and so on, while "light" acts are about enabling and protecting life and using whatever you take from the Force to enable or protect life, so the Force will ultimately gain from what you take from it.

You could say that the Jedis invest what they take from the Force towards future returns, while Sith just take from the force. In other words, Jedis (like natural life) are symbiotic with the Force, while Sith are parasitic on the Force.

Now, death is a natural part of life -- predators kill, and no living thing lives forever. But in natural life, each death enables other life -- either that of the predator (or its young), scavengers, micro-organisms or other. So it is taking life in a manner that doesn't enable other life that would be counter to the Force. The scene where Luke burns the body of his father is rather at odds to this, as the burning of both wood and body doesn't let these enter back into the natural life cycle. This is one of many contradictions in the SW "philosophy" presented in the films.

As for the difficulty in turning from the dark side, I see this as an addiction: Once you have started taking power without regard to consequences, you get addicted to it like to a drug, and the more you do it, the harder it is to turn back.

[fmitchell]

OK, I have a confession to make. I really don't care about Star Wars.

What made this article interesting to me was its exploration of The Paladin Problem. In D&D, Star Wars, and a few other games, you have these characters that are Paragons of Good. But what does that mean? Are they good by definition? What sort of moral code should they abide by? Can a human being abide by it at all?

Political polemics aside, the notion of Always Lawful Good, for undefined values of "lawful" and "good", is on its face ridiculous. It was ridiculous during the Crusades, it was ridiculous when D&D introduced alignment and Paladins, and it's ridiculous now. If you want to throw out the whole concept, fine.

Yet even in "real life" there are people who try to lead lives of virtue, to make the world a better place. If you gave them extraordinary power, would they make the world a far better place, or would they succumb to the temptations of power? Would their human "weaknesses" -- passions, dogmas, egos -- get in the way, or could they clear their minds and work unselfishly toward the common good? Is there even a common good, or is there merely moving evil from here to over there?

To me, that's what makes the concept of Jedi, Sith, and the Force interesting. I'd never run a Star Wars game, and I doubt I'd even play in one unless I trusted the GM. But I'm intrigued by the notion of a quasi-religious order that truly improved their world instead of merely enforcing dogmas, whose self-imposed limits had a practical purpose, whose philosophy made sense among recognizably human beings.

[Akyna]

The problem isn't Star Wars. The problem is trying to convert Star Wars into a hard and fast game mechanic. Star Wars is modern myth. It makes no more or less logical sense than Athena turning Arachne into a spider. But you're not suppose to be looking for logic. Myth means looking beyond the facts for truths. And this sort of thinking is contrary to trying to run a game for a system that wants to pidgeon-hole everything into alignments. Even though Star Wars doesn't use the traditional alignment matrix of normal D&D, it still suffers from the same mentality.

I wish my boyfriend would answer his cell phone. He's the SW guru in our house. The whole light side/dark side thing is actually addressed in several of the books after Luke reestablishes the Jedi Order. There is an offshoot that leaves the Order and teaches a more "middle of the road" approach where it isn't about denying traditionally "dark side" emotions, but rather learning to control and learn from them. Ultimately, Anikin's problem was an anger-management issue. Instead of addressing his anger and learning to deal with it, those around him told him to deny it and bottle it up. But the books for all time periods have always addressed these issues, even if Lucas dropped the ball in the movies.

Honestly, looking at the whole history of religion, I don't see why it seems odd that the Jedi are so closely tied to the Republic. The Catholic Church for centuries had its fingers in the governments of Europe, and even had a hand in putting Kings on their thrones. "Moral authority" always feels obligated to dictate/control/and guide governmental authority.

[Inquisitor Tremayne]

Well, in supers comics and games you face exactly the same question: Why isn't Superman the master of Earth? Why doesn't him use his powers to solve all problems in fractions of second? Or the X-men? Or Spiderman? The answer is simple: They don't do it because they don't. There's no way to rationalize an explanation because there's no possible rational answer to that question. Superhumans (and the Jedi are just superhumans in space) don't take power in pulp or comics for a very simple meta-setting question: That's a less interesting scenario to make. It is devoid of drama, action, and conflict. That's all.

But that's not a problem with the Star Wars universe. That's a problem with the Star Wars game. It's a similar issue to the endlessly discussed alignment system in D&D, and there's just no way to make it work - unless one accepts the core premise that whoever is in the good side is good, no matter what the character does. If you don't accept this premise you will never be able to solve the contradictions between pre-defined moral stats and character behavior. It's better to just ditch the whole dark side points.

Well, as you said you see "the basic philosophy as a sort of bastardized samurai Zen Buddhism, with non-denominational Western morality wedged in". That's not the only aspect of the Star Wars universe that's heavily inspired by real world elements. Actually for my European eyes the Star Wars universe is just the US of America in Space (Opera). The first movie places this very clearly by having the good Americans fighting the bad Nazis (with shades of Soviets), aesthetics included. That's the reason why the Jedi fight for a Republic and for democracy, because they are Americans in Space (TM), thus it's usless to try to find a more philosophicaly profound reason, that's how one can "attempt to reconcile the morality of the movies with something approximating the real world".

Do they? All you need to remember is that Star Wars is USA in Space and it starts to sound a little less puerile or inconsistent, for a very simple reason: The way the US sees its place in the world and the way it deals with anything outside its borders is as puerile as the fight of good vs. evil in Star Wars.

Try "those who aren't with us are against us", George Bush style not that long ago.

And that's probably the only way to deal with the moral, ethical, political and social issues raised by the Star Wars universe. Just consider that it is the USA in Space and handle these issues in true American way. Start with, "whe are right and whoever does not agree with us is wrong". Next include all types of righteous groups, each one fighting is own pet war based on absolutist moral standards; and voilà, there's your consistent moral system for Star Wars.

(Note: What I wrote is not an attack on the USA and should not be read as such.)

I agree 100%.

I think what needs to be determined is that we should be talking about 2 different things here.

1) Good vs. Evil/black vs. white and its role is Star Wars.

2) The Force and its role in Star Wars.

While they both influence each other they are different enough that I think folks are getting them mixed up in this discussion. I think we should also keep the argument to the movies just so we are all clear and on the same page.

I think smascrns statement above sums up the good vs. evil issue fairly well.

However, lets explore the question; why don't the Jedi take over and rule the galaxy? After all they should be able to do a good job of it since they have negotiated peace on behalf of the republic for a thousand years prior right? I would say their resume looks pretty good for ruling the galaxy. There really isn't anything stopping them (if you take the Sith out of the equation). So have the Jedi rule the galaxy. Hmm, what would you get? Well, from the movies you would get a ruling body of snotty elitist "wizards" passing judgment on the entire galaxy. Of course thats how I view the Jedi council in the prequel trilogy your view may differ. I am sure having them for a government would not sit will with the public let alone any senators who are fearful that the jedi might use their mind tricks on them to get what they want.

Whoops. Out of time. Back to work. to be continued...

[Lord Crimson]

One of the things I'm kind of surprised that no one ever really considers with the SW universe is that "The Force" is really Taoism's "the Way." Sure it's a pop-cultural two-fisted pulp version of Taoism, but it's clearly the inspiration and guiding example. Yet every one keeps trying to cram "The Force" into this western religious worldview of right vs. wrong and punishing the wicked as opposed to the Taoist religious worldview of avoiding extremism and working with the Force/Way for the betterment of all (or, at least, "good, honest folk").

It's not that the Light Side is on the right while the Dark Side is on the left; it's not that kind of opposition. It's moderation of spirit and reasonable action (what some call a "Middle Road" world view) as opposed to extreme emotion and extreme reaction. So when it comes to the Jedi and the Force, "GOOD" is moderation and reason. "BAD" is extremism.

The examples we have in the movies, specifically, imply that action motivated by extreme emotions are "of the Dark Side." Hate, Fear, Anger. These emotions result invariably in extreme reactions. The reason certain powers (specifically all Sith powers) are purely "Dark Side" is that they can only be used by tapping those extremes. Sure the extreme emotions give you a boost... On the other hand, you fall into a never ending cycle of extremism because it makes you powerful. It also lays waste to your body, but hey, no one said great power didn't come with great sacrifices, right? (Only that justification is, itself, a Dark Side justification).

"Be mindful of your feelings, my padawan" is what Obi-Wan constantly warns his apprentice. Not "don't feel" but "don't act", at least when it comes to those negative emotions.

Anakin's problem is that he is NEVER mindful of his feelings. He ONLY acts from extremes of emotion. Fear of losing his lover. Hatred over the death of his mother. Anger over being "held back"/hurt pride.

The intention is for the Jedi to always act in a middle-road fashion, to never fall prey to extremism. They can FEEL Hate, Anger, Fear, but they must not allow those feelings to influence their actions and decisions. They must not let feeling become OBSESSION. They can also FEEL Love, but allowing fear or anger over losing that love or hatred for those who take it from you to motivate your actions... That is the Dark Side (and why the Jedi bar their membership from Love, because that emotion leads too easily into the trap of the DS emotions... Honestly, someone kills YOUR S.O., even accidentally, how are you going to react? Probably in a way motivated by Anger and Hatred). Motivation is very important (Are you killing that Imperial because he shot your best friend? Or because he's a continuing threat to "good, honest folk"?), but so is the extremity of the action you choose to take (Why did you kill that Imperial when you could have just taken him prisoner? Why did you Force Choke him into unconsciousness when you could have just pulled Force TK'd his blaster out of his hand?)... And even the "good guys" occasionally choose the less Light Side choice (their only human... or alien... which is why PCs get a range of 6 Dark Side points to move back and forth along the scale).

Now, I don't particularly care for the prequels. But in maintaining THIS view of the Force they are NOT contradicting the original trilogy (at least as far as pulp space adventure is concerned).

Now, the beauty of the SW Universe is that we get to handwave a lot of the philosophy of it BECAUSE it's pulpy space opera. I mean, we're still getting the cut-and-dried line of Light vs. Dark. But how extreme is Dark Side extreme?

The Empire and anyone willingly a part of it is, by its very definition, the "bad guy." They are constantly acting in extremes. Their every reaction is one of violence and intimidation. No diplomacy. No conversation. No moderation.

And because it's pulpy space opera goodness, there are certain actions/abilities that are objectively "of the Dark Side." Ruthless mind control (as opposed to the occasional Jedi Mind Trick). Killing "innocents" (as opposed to killing bad guys/threats). Using Force Lightning or Force Choke (as opposed to most other Force powers).

It also allows the GM and his players to DECIDE how important or strict the Middle Road morality of the Jedi is integral to their game. In my games, Force Choke and Force Lightning = Dark Side stuff no matter what. Rebel suicide bombers would be Dark Side characters. Blowing up planets is always bad. Using Force Points to up damage AT ALL gives you a DS point, but using a Force Point to shoot the blaster from the guy's hand or disable his engines does not.

But maybe in your game, you decide you want more grey. Maybe Force Lightning ISN'T purely from the Dark Side. Maybe Luke got a DS point for blowing up the Death Star. That's up to you and your players... though if you or your players want it to fit with the movies, you're going to have to grant some leeway or explain to your players that this ISN'T the Star Wars they may be expecting.

Take it for what you will.

[Lemony_Fresh]

Wasn't the line from the movie "Only a sith 'deals' in absolutes"?

Anyway, I always thought of the dark side as a corrupting influence, that once you start falling into its power you can't really escape it. That it basically sucks you in and twists you to its will until you are nothing but a pawn of whatever its greater plan may be.

[simontmn]

As for "only a Sith deals in absolutes", the strangely absolutist and demonstrably false statement from Obi-Wan: the preceding line was Anakin's "If you're not with me, you're my enemy."

That was George Lucas making an amusing dig at GW Bush, not the basis for a philosophy! :eek:

[IMAGinES]

Not only that, but Force Grip/Force Choke was usually listed as a Dark Side power even though it was the very first technique we see Luke using once he becomes a Jedi Knight in Return of the Jedi. (I'm always amazed that nobody points this out in arguments about Force Grip. If you can't recall, it's when he's entering Jabba's palace and chokes a guard to make him get out of the way.)

Belac, didn't it disturb you that the first thing we see Luke do when he walks on set in Return of the Jedi is use the same trick Darth Vader uses on the Imperial admiral in A New Hope? I mean, think about that whole film - it's not until right at the end, after throttling the Gamorreans, after telling Jabba the Hutt that not bargaining with him was "the last mistake you'll ever make", after nearly killing not only the Emperor but also his own father in fits of fury, that Luke starts atoning for the Dark Side Points he's been steadily earning. As Yoda said, he wasn't a Jedi until he confronted Vader - when he finally let go his anger.

It's interesting to note, though, that Force Grip isn't a Dark Side power in Saga Edition, although the description of its use seems very Dark Side.

[IMAGinES]

Hi, Lord Crimson. I liked your post about the Way and how the Force is a pulp-tale version of it. However, I think that, perhaps, there's something that maybe you and Thomas Kolar missed in your examinations of the films.

Now, I'm assuming that you're much more of an expert on the Way than I am - I've never done any study into Taoism or the Way, so I'll be going by your post alone here. You write that the Way encourages "moderation of spirit and reasonable action (what some call a "Middle Road" world view) as opposed to extreme emotion and extreme reaction". You then discuss how Anakin doesn't take the middle road, responding to his emotions instead of being aware of them and seeking a "better" path. That I'm cool with, and it does sum up the character as both Anakin and Vader. I also agree with your assessment on the dark side and the awarding of Dark Side Points.

My response is more to what you wrote about the Jedi's "Middle Road morality". Again, you may be using the term "Middle Road" as informed by your understanding of Taoism, and as I don't share it I may be missing what you're getting at. But to me, the Jedi Order of the prequels doesn't occupy a middle road either. They've tried so hard to avoid falling to the dark side that they've swung straight past the point of balance - the middle road, to my mind - and on to the other end of the scale: abstinence.

In his article, Kolar wrote "We all know ... the Jedi are good." Actually, I think the prequel movies showed us that what "we all know" about the Jedi Knights has as much chance of being correct as all the rest of the "everybody knows..." statements that people make every day. Sure, they were even better sword-swinging badasses than we imagined (especially with Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu), but the movies also showed us that their self-imposed abstinence had as much part in the fall of the Order and the Republic as the corruption of the Senate.

The Jedi judged the danger of any sincere human (or whichever Star Wars species you prefer) attachment leading to the dark side so great that they encouraged families to give their Force-sensitive children over to the Order forever and trained those children to abstain from any further contract with their own kin in case they were corrupted. And when presented with a human being with an honest-to-Force human problem - twice - the best the head of the Order had to offer was "fear is the path to the Dark Side" and "Attachment leads to jealousy... let go of everything you fear to lose." Mace Windu knows he doesn't trust Anakin but doesn't do anything about it, and even Anakin's best friend Obi-Wan has no clue how to deal with his friend's visions of his mother - allowing Palpatine, the only person who demonstrates some empathy and understanding of the human condition, to play him like a Stradivarius.

You may say that the Jedi had the right of it - but if they did, I think Return of the Jedi would have ended with Luke saying, "Well, my work here is done, now I must leave you all to re-found the Jedi Order at a distant monastery." Instead, the very last shot of the film is of Luke, Leia, Han, Lando, Chewie, Threepio and Artoo in celebration - together. To me, accepting both the strength and weakness that attachment can bring - in a word, I suppose, family (and as Luke demonstrated, friends are included within "family", as your best friends are the family you make, just as valid as the one you're born into) - is moderation, is the Middle Road, is the prophesied Balance of the Force.

Anyway, that's my opinion. And while I don't think you can assign "Anti-Dark-Side Points" for following the Jedi path, I think a clever GM can use a PC's following of the Jedi Code in all sorts of fun ways. Hell, the interesting stuff only starts happening to Obi-Wan once we establish his ties with Qui-Gon and then Anakin.

... actually, come to think of it, doesn't the default Jedi as portrayed in the prequels remind anyone else of the "orphaned badass with no attachments" player character that gets so much flak in RPG circles nowadays for being built to counter any hooks the GM can come up with?

[Devin Parker]

I think you're onto something, IMAGinES. One of the ways in which I tried to reconcile things in my mind after seeing the Prequels was to reason that the Jedi Order had become stagnant, too confident in its own authority and too steeped in its flawed understanding of the Force to the degree that it had left behind the true vitality of the Force (which, as you point out, Luke re-establishes by the end of the Original Trilogy) and was no longer able to see that. It had fallen into error but refused to acknowledge it, giving the Sith the opportunity to take advantage of the dissatisfaction and dissent that had formed in the Republic as a result.

It then makes sense to me that Yoda would spend his post-Republic days hiding out in seclusion and contemplation rather than attempting an active role in the Rebellion. He might sense somewhere in his conscience that his Jedi Order played a significant role in the downfall of the Old Republic, but ultimately Yoda was too stubbornly set in his ways and too easily able to justify his take on Jedi philosophy to abandon his monastic abstinence...

The fact that the Jedi considered love to be something they shouldn't allow into their lives troubled me greatly. Your explanation as to why the Jedi would have promoted such a philosophy - one which ultimately is proven to be in error - really makes sense of that "Balance of the Force" prophecy.

[IMAGinES]

Thanks, Devin. You know, something I thought of last night after writing that post is that the Jedi were themselves afraid. Whenever Yoda and Obi-Wan say something about the dark side, it's usually to the effect that "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Basically, the reason why the Old Jedi Order were so keen on ensuring their Padawans, Knights and Masters had no ties that could tempt them to the dark side was because they honestly thought that any being sensitive to the Force who fell to the dark side stayed fallen forever, and while Luke in the end proved them wrong, you can see how that belief motivated practically everything the Order did, including telling Luke that the only thing he could do for his Dad was kill him.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes?

[Lord Crimson]

My response is more to what you wrote about the Jedi's "Middle Road morality". Again, you may be using the term "Middle Road" as informed by your understanding of Taoism, and as I don't share it I may be missing what you're getting at. But to me, the Jedi Order of the prequels doesn't occupy a middle road either. They've tried so hard to avoid falling to the dark side that they've swung straight past the point of balance - the middle road, to my mind - and on to the other end of the scale: abstinence.

etc.


I think you have some good evidence to support such a read of the full saga (it's a point that my compatriot Myca, who often posts on these forums, was actually making while I wrote my original post).

I think my take on it was that it was a result of lazy, inconsistent writing in the Prequels that lumped all monastic traditions into the common western conception that has heavily Christian leanings (hence the abstinence) instead of drawing on the actual source culture. Another example of it being lazy/sloppy writing being Obi-Wan telling Anakin in Ep 2 that "they're only dreams" when we know that Jedi regularly have visions, even in the days of the Republic (in fact, that seems to be the source of concern for the Jedi... they seem to be having a harder time having visions... yet Anakin's visions are just dreams). Yet another would be the Emperor's use of Force Lightning turning him instantly into "wrinkly emperor" all at once, but it doesn't have that effect when he uses those powers on Luke later.

Other general examples of the sloppy writing would be the standard complaints, though, too: midichlorians, emo Anakin, 8 yr old Anakin hitting on Amidala/Padme, Padme dying even though Leia remembers her, Obi Wan having interacted with R2 and C-3PO for a decade and yet not remembering them come Ep 4, and Jar Jar Binks.

But since it is the only story we have "from the horse's mouth," so to speak, we do have to rely upon what actually takes place on the screen. So it's definitely a valid take on what had begun to happen with the Jedi (it might even be WHY they had started to lose access to some of their powers... like the visions).


The fact that the Jedi considered love to be something they shouldn't allow into their lives troubled me greatly. Your explanation as to why the Jedi would have promoted such a philosophy - one which ultimately is proven to be in error - really makes sense of that "Balance of the Force" prophecy.

Again, from an Eastern perspective, "Love" is seen as this troublesome thing that gets in the way of happiness and duty. It causes people to abandon their arranged marriages, break vows to their comrades and superiors, and tends towards obsession when denied. So, if this is the paradigm that the Force is based upon, love really is a danger if the Dark Side is a real concern (which, in SW, it really is). Even in some Western stories, too much love is a bad thing (some literary scholars claim that this was the "tragic flaw" suffered by Romeo and Juliet... they did not love moderately like the priest recommended). And it's nice to see a story where this idea is covered: Love = Bad... Love = Good has become such a trite plot device that it just isn't interesting anymore.

And with the Jedi, Love doesn't equal anything. It just is, but it tends to lead to the Dark Side Emotions when an padawan doesn't "mind his feelings", which then destroy a Jedi (just like it did Anakin).

On the other hand, Luke does seem to use Love to save his friends, and then later his father, in the original trilogy, which does grant support for your reading as well.

[FatR]

I think you're onto something, IMAGinES. One of the ways in which I tried to reconcile things in my mind after seeing the Prequels was to reason that the Jedi Order had become stagnant, too confident in its own authority and too steeped in its flawed understanding of the Force to the degree that it had left behind the true vitality of the Force (which, as you point out, Luke re-establishes by the end of the Original Trilogy) and was no longer able to see that. It had fallen into error but refused to acknowledge it, giving the Sith the opportunity to take advantage of the dissatisfaction and dissent that had formed in the Republic as a result.
I think, that movies give more support for "Palpatine was just too powerful and devious" line of reasoning. And, if anything, Jedi became not too confident, but too cautious, sticking to tried and proven ways, which, despite being beneficial in the short and middle term, harmed them in the perspective. Take the issue about training Anakin, for example. Yoda was absolutely right, refusing to accept him on the grounds of his potential psychological instability, as Anakin indeed proved to be selfish and ruled by emotions, wasn't he? However, although corrupting Anakin certainly helped Palpatine in his grand scheme, he most likely would have toppled Jedi Order anyway. By the time Anakin was found, Darh Sidious was already firmly on the way to victory, with key chess pieces in place. And, ironically, in the long term Darth Vader became the Emperor's sole fatal weakness. So, in the end, Qui Gon, with his insight and intuition, happened to be right, and Yoda, with his reason, was wrong.

It then makes sense to me that Yoda would spend his post-Republic days hiding out in seclusion and contemplation rather than attempting an active role in the Rebellion. He might sense somewhere in his conscience that his Jedi Order played a significant role in the downfall of the Old Republic, but ultimately Yoda was too stubbornly set in his ways and too easily able to justify his take on Jedi philosophy to abandon his monastic abstinence...
Screwing up with defense of the Republic is the most obvious reason to retreat from the frontline, until you can identify the flaws within yourself and the Order that caused defeat.

[FatR]

Thanks, Devin. You know, something I thought of last night after writing that post is that the Jedi were themselves afraid. Whenever Yoda and Obi-Wan say something about the dark side, it's usually to the effect that "Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny." Basically, the reason why the Old Jedi Order were so keen on ensuring their Padawans, Knights and Masters had no ties that could tempt them to the dark side was because they honestly thought that any being sensitive to the Force who fell to the dark side stayed fallen forever, and while Luke in the end proved them wrong, you can see how that belief motivated practically everything the Order did, including telling Luke that the only thing he could do for his Dad was kill him.

Only the Sith deal in absolutes?
Going by the movies, there was no precendents of returning from the Dark Side, before Anakin. Note, that Darth Sidious was equally sure in its grip on Vader (and that happened to be his undoing). Ep3 shows why. Once Anakin succumbed, it took him just a few hours at most to began perceiving utter atrocity as something perfectly acceptable, and about a day to begin making plans about ruling the Galaxy. It is obvious, that the Dark Side twists and rewrites its follower's personality, erasing his conscience and ability to restrain his own burning desires and raging ambitions. No wonder, that Yoda considered Anakin effectively dead and consumed from the moment of its fall.

Oh, and about the original article. I find it initial criticism mostly undeserved. In my opinion, the author's solution, is the viewpoint of the movies. The Dark Side is cancer in the Force, growing out of selfish desires and uncontrolled wants, and, in turn, magnifying them. Sith are evil because they are completely ruled by their own ambitions, desires or ideals, and think nothing about imposing their will on others. Note, how crucial to the Anakin's fall was the fact, that he never ever attempted to ask Padme what she thinks about his desire to save her at any cost. Of course, Jedi also aren't free from mistakes and bad judgement - but they, at least, try to find the correct way, instead of thinking that they are always right (OT Yoda allowing Luke to make his own choices comes to mind.)

[FatR]

The Jedi judged the danger of any sincere human (or whichever Star Wars species you prefer) attachment leading to the dark side so great that they encouraged families to give their Force-sensitive children over to the Order forever and trained those children to abstain from any further contract with their own kin in case they were corrupted. And when presented with a human being with an honest-to-Force human problem - twice - the best the head of the Order had to offer was "fear is the path to the Dark Side" and "Attachment leads to jealousy... let go of everything you fear to lose." Mace Windu knows he doesn't trust Anakin but doesn't do anything about it, and even Anakin's best friend Obi-Wan has no clue how to deal with his friend's visions of his mother - allowing Palpatine, the only person who demonstrates some empathy and understanding of the human condition, to play him like a Stradivarius.
Also Yoda also was absolutely damn right in his advice, while Palpatine demonstrated his understanding of the human condition primarily by understanding Anakin's unability to restrain his desires. You see, if Anakin just had a little, tiny bit of temperance and restraint, or, I don't know, ability to listen for the opinion of people, who do not flatter him blatantly, he would have had everything he ever desired - both the glory of the galaxy's savior and Padme (remember, Jedi can quit the Order, if they want, so, the celibacy practice is not that much of an issue). Well, you all know, that instead he ruined himself, and everything he ever cared for. "Problems with anger managemen"? Don't make me laugh. Anakin's final fall had nothing to do with anger, and everything to do with selfishness, irresponsibility, unability to say "no" to himself and to be honest with his friends.

You may say that the Jedi had the right of it - but if they did, I think Return of the Jedi would have ended with Luke saying, "Well, my work here is done, now I must leave you all to re-found the Jedi Order at a distant monastery." Instead, the very last shot of the film is of Luke, Leia, Han, Lando, Chewie, Threepio and Artoo in celebration - together.
How that is different from Ep1 ending, however?

[Lord Crimson]

Anakin's final fall had nothing to do with anger, and everything to do with selfishness, irresponsibility, unability to say "no" to himself and to be honest with his friends.


No, I think it had everything to do with anger. But it was anger fueled by all of these things you mention. He was so self-righteous and self-obsessed that any evidence contrary to his self delusion drove him to fits of murder and betrayal.

But I definitely agree with you more than those that just want to sling around a pop-psych term like "anger management issues" and use it to write off discussion of the character. But the problem for many (myself included, to some degree) is that shoddy writing and terrible acting make it all but impossible to actually feel any sympathy for the Anakin that we see in the prequels.

[Phlophouse]

What a good thread, once the gamist left the building.

What is really going on here? We as individuals must grapple with our awareness of self and our affect on the world around us. That is part of what stories do. They reflect one minor aspect of behavior and consequence. I started questioning the same issues about the Force presented in this article, but stopped because I realized that I had already grappled with them, personally, in life. This thread has moved away from gaming into philosophy, where there are no right answers although some are more equal than others. I think it is wonderful. If you want to understand the Force, you have to answer your own questions of right and wrong.

[IMAGinES]

Also Yoda also was absolutely damn right in his advice, while Palpatine demonstrated his understanding of the human condition primarily by understanding Anakin's unability to restrain his desires. You see, if Anakin just had a little, tiny bit of temperance and restraint, or, I don't know, ability to listen for the opinion of people, who do not flatter him blatantly, he would have had everything he ever desired - both the glory of the galaxy's savior and Padme (remember, Jedi can quit the Order, if they want, so, the celibacy practice is not that much of an issue). Well, you all know, that instead he ruined himself, and everything he ever cared for. "Problems with anger managemen"? Don't make me laugh. Anakin's final fall had nothing to do with anger, and everything to do with selfishness, irresponsibility, unability to say "no" to himself and to be honest with his friends.

Hmm. I agree and disagree. I don't argue that Anakin trod his own path to the Dark Side step by step, but I do think Yoda's advice - give it all up for the sake of the greater good - was an extreme viewpoint. Sure, the Jedi didn't contribute to Anakin's fall, but I really don't think they helped him stop in any real way.

How that is different from Ep1 ending, however?

Mainly as the ending of Ep1 is more a direct parallel to Episode IV. Both are less celebration and more ceremony, both give the impression that while the current battle has been won, the Big Story isn't over yet. The end of Episode VI is The End, the writer's final judgment on the fate of his characters: "And they all lived happily ever after."

[Lord Lycanthrope]

I see the dark side of the force as basically stemming from willing blindness to the moral facts. Anger and fear are not inherently bad. They’re bad because they make you ignore the reality of what you’re doing and your moral responsibility for doing it. The Dark Side is the side of sociopaths, always willing to handwave away the implications of what they’re doing in return for whatever good feeling they’re feeling now. When Anakin slaughters dozens of sandmen he doesn’t consider which of them were actually guilty, whether they had a reason to do what they did (maybe it’s their land and the Skywalkers are trespassers who took it by force or received it from those that did?) or what harm he could cause to other people (what if it caused a general Sandman retaliation?). Someone acting to satisfy his own feelings, regardless of reality is deliberately ignoring reality, his path is not seen (dark) not because he can’t see because won’t.
Even Palpatine, the greatest dark force user in the galaxy, makes a fatal and childish mistake in crowing about Luke going to the dark side which causes Luke to wake up to what is happening and reject the dark path. Someone of emotional maturity, who accepted that he was not a God and that the universe didn’t owe him victory probably wouldn’t have made that mistake. Notice that the empire always refers to the rebels as “scum”, “insignificant” (even after they destroyed the biggest piece of military equipment ever constructed) and similar things.
Under this analysis only sentient things can go to the dark side because only they have the option to ignore facts rather than act on them automatically.
The real reason that there are so many moral/religious contradictions in Star Wars and particularly the prequels is that the Jedi order and many of the “good guys” are willing to ignore reality in small ways, which start the corruption that leads to the empire and the triumph (however temporary) of evil. The Jedi council know they need the one prophesied, but when someone appears who fits the bill they ignore him because he’s not what they’re used to in a recruit. They turn their eyes away from someone they themselves think is dangerous, as though that were a safe thing to do. Clearly given his levels of power Anakin’s training should be handled by the most competent people avialible, but it ends up in the hands of a relative newcomer. All that it would have taken to avoid this outcome is for the council, or someone on it to say “Well I think we screwed up, let’s train this guy after all.”.
They’re told that there is corruption at the heart of the Senate and they refuse to take it seriously. This despite the fact that they’re told it by someone who took corruption to the heart of the Jedi order and library, which is orders of magnitude harder to corrupt than the Senate. I mean who can’t corrupt the Senate? They do this for political expediency. They need the Republic to routinely test billions of people to find thousands of potential Jedi and to provide shiny spaceships. Therefore it’s flaws are ignored, even after they are plainly stated by Amidala “the Republic no longer functions.” and her statements are proved correct. Even she ignores her own advice and tries to keep the Republic together, despite the fact that it was less than useless in dealing with her planets problems. Let’s face it when you have to make an alliance with a non-Republic state and Jedi acting outside their orders (and arguably illegally) to solve a problem with an entity the Republic supports it’s no longer worth being in it. So why does she try to stop other planets leaving? Is the chancellor’s chair really that comfortable that it’s worth going directly against your own knowledge?
So don’t be so hard on the morality of Star Wars not making sense. It’s primarily due to the people advancing it ignoring the finer points for their own advantage. In other words it’s no more screwed up than real life explanations for morality.
:(

[Lord Lycanthrope]

Anakin's final fall had nothing to do with anger, and everything to do with selfishness, irresponsibility, unability to say "no" to himself and to be honest with his friends.


No, I think it had everything to do with anger. But it was anger fueled by all of these things you mention. He was so self-righteous and self-obsessed that any evidence contrary to his self delusion drove him to fits of murder and betrayal.

But I definitely agree with you more than those that just want to sling around a pop-psych term like "anger management issues" and use it to write off discussion of the character. But the problem for many (myself included, to some degree) is that shoddy writing and terrible acting make it all but impossible to actually feel any sympathy for the Anakin that we see in the prequels.

I think the anger is the feul for the selfishness, irresponsibility, inability to say "no" to himself and to be honest with his friends. Then again maybe you're right and it goes in the other direction. Or they're mutaully reinforcing. Yeah that's it. :)

[Lord Lycanthrope]

One of the things I'm kind of surprised that no one ever really considers with the SW universe is that "The Force" is really Taoism's "the Way." Sure it's a pop-cultural two-fisted pulp version of Taoism, but it's clearly the inspiration and guiding example. Yet every one keeps trying to cram "The Force" into this western religious worldview of right vs. wrong and punishing the wicked as opposed to the Taoist religious worldview of avoiding extremism and working with the Force/Way for the betterment of all (or, at least, "good, honest folk").

It's not that the Light Side is on the right while the Dark Side is on the left; it's not that kind of opposition. It's moderation of spirit and reasonable action (what some call a "Middle Road" world view) as opposed to extreme emotion and extreme reaction. So when it comes to the Jedi and the Force, "GOOD" is moderation and reason. "BAD" is extremism.

The examples we have in the movies, specifically, imply that action motivated by extreme emotions are "of the Dark Side." Hate, Fear, Anger. These emotions result invariably in extreme reactions. The reason certain powers (specifically all Sith powers) are purely "Dark Side" is that they can only be used by tapping those extremes. Sure the extreme emotions give you a boost... On the other hand, you fall into a never ending cycle of extremism because it makes you powerful. It also lays waste to your body, but hey, no one said great power didn't come with great sacrifices, right? (Only that justification is, itself, a Dark Side justification).

"Be mindful of your feelings, my padawan" is what Obi-Wan constantly warns his apprentice. Not "don't feel" but "don't act", at least when it comes to those negative emotions.

Anakin's problem is that he is NEVER mindful of his feelings. He ONLY acts from extremes of emotion. Fear of losing his lover. Hatred over the death of his mother. Anger over being "held back"/hurt pride.

The intention is for the Jedi to always act in a middle-road fashion, to never fall prey to extremism. They can FEEL Hate, Anger, Fear, but they must not allow those feelings to influence their actions and decisions. They must not let feeling become OBSESSION. They can also FEEL Love, but allowing fear or anger over losing that love or hatred for those who take it from you to motivate your actions... That is the Dark Side (and why the Jedi bar their membership from Love, because that emotion leads too easily into the trap of the DS emotions... Honestly, someone kills YOUR S.O., even accidentally, how are you going to react? Probably in a way motivated by Anger and Hatred). Motivation is very important (Are you killing that Imperial because he shot your best friend? Or because he's a continuing threat to "good, honest folk"?), but so is the extremity of the action you choose to take (Why did you kill that Imperial when you could have just taken him prisoner? Why did you Force Choke him into unconsciousness when you could have just pulled Force TK'd his blaster out of his hand?)... And even the "good guys" occasionally choose the less Light Side choice (their only human... or alien... which is why PCs get a range of 6 Dark Side points to move back and forth along the scale).


As I see it the Jedi in the prequels are trapped by their inability to act and feel. They spend so much effort trying to avoid emotion that when they encounter it they just don't have the skills to deal with it. That's why they take the emotionally disasterous decision to not love. Someone who doesn't love is going to make themselves emotionally and probably physically ill. But they have to avoid it to avoid extremes of emotion. The problem is you can't avoid extremes of emotion when extreme things happen, like a boy turning up that could change everything your religion does and a lot of what it stands for. So when he does turn up they act entirely unreasonably and from fear. Yoda claimed that he could feel fear and "fear leads to anger" etc. But I saw no sign of fear in Anakin, could it be the council was projecting their own insecurities on Anakin?
Luke's triumph is that he confronts the ultimate in emotional extremes, every thing and person loves and risked his life for is being destroyed out of pure power lust and malice by a traitor and a dictator. He goes into an understandable homicidal rage. Personally if it had been me I would have gone right on slashing that lightsabre until you could mail Vader anywhere in the universe using only standard sized envelopes. But Luke (being a hero) is made of sterner stuff. He is capable of feeling the emotion fully and then deciding not to act on it. In future no matter what the provocation he will be able to respond in a reasonable and reasoning manner. After all if you can keep control when you're best friend and sister are being murdered and the galaxy plunged into more decades of tyranny what can't you handle?


Now, I don't particularly care for the prequels. But in maintaining THIS view of the Force they are NOT contradicting the original trilogy (at least as far as pulp space adventure is concerned).

Now, the beauty of the SW Universe is that we get to handwave a lot of the philosophy of it BECAUSE it's pulpy space opera. I mean, we're still getting the cut-and-dried line of Light vs. Dark. But how extreme is Dark Side extreme?

The Empire and anyone willingly a part of it is, by its very definition, the "bad guy." They are constantly acting in extremes. Their every reaction is one of violence and intimidation. No diplomacy. No conversation. No moderation.

And because it's pulpy space opera goodness, there are certain actions/abilities that are objectively "of the Dark Side." Ruthless mind control (as opposed to the occasional Jedi Mind Trick). Killing "innocents" (as opposed to killing bad guys/threats). Using Force Lightning or Force Choke (as opposed to most other Force powers).

It also allows the GM and his players to DECIDE how important or strict the Middle Road morality of the Jedi is integral to their game. In my games, Force Choke and Force Lightning = Dark Side stuff no matter what. Rebel suicide bombers would be Dark Side characters. Blowing up planets is always bad. Using Force Points to up damage AT ALL gives you a DS point, but using a Force Point to shoot the blaster from the guy's hand or disable his engines does not.

But maybe in your game, you decide you want more grey. Maybe Force Lightning ISN'T purely from the Dark Side. Maybe Luke got a DS point for blowing up the Death Star. That's up to you and your players... though if you or your players want it to fit with the movies, you're going to have to grant some leeway or explain to your players that this ISN'T the Star Wars they may be expecting.

Take it for what you will.

I don't think blowing up the Death Star gets you a DS point. After all it's the minimum use of force to prevent the death of innocents. If you could disable it and force it to surrender then sure, killing thousands of people, most of them probably conscripts and dupes of imperial propaganda would be evil. But you can't. Similarly Force Choke is allowable if it's the least harmful way to do something. You can fight a hundred warrior and kill dozens of them or you can FC their leader until he tells them to lower their weapons. Which is the reasonable and responsible choice?