New Comics - sequal to kotor and origin of the jedi

[Darth Yan]

There are two new series coming from Dark Horse.

http://blog.farawaypress.com/2011/10/za ... f-old.html I liked Kotor and Miller can definately craft compelling characters and arcs (his destroyer arc is still one of the darkest arcs in star wars, featuring mindrape, slavery torture and one of the most disgustingly cruel acts of depravity a star wars eu villain has pulled off) http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page ... e&id=34902 I'm on the fence about it. IT seems interesting but I'm worried.

[lstyer]

I read the first trade paperback collection of Knights of the Old Republic and it didn't really do much for me, but I've been thinking about giving it another chance. Until I do, though, and unless the second try "works" better for me, I probably don't particularly care about Miller's upcoming series.

Dawn of the Jedi, though. is by Ostrander and Duursema, who are my favorite Star Wars comics creative team, so I'm definitely excited. I'll happily read pretty much anything John Ostrander writes, and I love Jan Duursema's art.

[Darth Fanboy]

Dawn of the Jedi, though. is by Ostrander and Duursema, who are my favorite Star Wars comics creative team,

Tells me all I need to know about your taste in comics. Watch as we get one "edgy" character that is basically just spooge with lines traced around it. Would not be surprised if it's a descendant of Quinlan Vos that founds the Jedi Order.

[lstyer]

Tells me all I need to know about your taste in comics.

Probably more than you needed to know since I can't imagine a good reason that you'd need to know anything about my taste in comics. That said, the Star Wars comics of Ostrander and Duursema have never struck me as particularly dark and edgy. Other than the on-screen drug-use in Legacy, I'm not sure I can think of anything darker in that series than what we saw in the movies. I'd say that their stuff is maybe on the opposite end of the spectrum from your average Jar Jar scene, but is nothing way outside the spectrum that's covered by Star Wars in general.

that is basically just spooge with lines traced around it

Is that like an art complaint, or what?

Would not be surprised if it's a descendant of Quinlan Vos that founds the Jedi Order.

The descendent of a prequel-era character founding the Jedi Order several thousand years before the prequels? That would surprise the hell out of me.

[DesertFly]

I am moderately interested in the Origin of the Jedi comic, although I am hesitant to say the least. I feel that something is lost when too much of a hinted at back story is uncovered and every second is explored. (Boba Fett was at his coolest from his introduction in ESB to the first time his origins started getting fleshed out. Every story that was confirmed as having actually happened, as opposed to being another detail of ambiguous truth, lessened the image of the badass gunslinger for hire with mysterious past and motivations. It didn't matter how awesome he was in any particular story, exploring his emotions only cheapens him.)

The mist-shrouded ancient history of the Republic and the Jedi will I'm afraid become commonplace, losing their impact in universe and out to awe and inspire. (Although more in than out, I suppose. :P)

Here be dragons and all that.

[lstyer]

I am moderately interested in the Origin of the Jedi comic, although I am hesitant to say the least. I feel that something is lost when too much of a hinted at back story is uncovered and every second is explored.

I can see that hesitation. Origin stories for institutions sometimes seem to devolve into fan-wankery more easily than other kinds of stories.

The other problem I have with Star Wars stories set in the distant past from the mainline era is that the technology never really strikes me as sufficiently different for the thousands of years between. The difficulty there being that the tech is a lot of what makes for a Star Wars feel, so if the tech was way different, maybe it wouldn't feel like Star Wars at all. That's not enough to pull me out of that sort of story, but it usually bugs me a bit.

[Darth Fanboy]

Probably more than you needed to know since I can't imagine a good reason that you'd need to know anything about my taste in comics. That said, the Star Wars comics of Ostrander and Duursema have never struck me as particularly dark and edgy. Other than the on-screen drug-use in Legacy, I'm not sure I can think of anything darker in that series than what we saw in the movies. I'd say that their stuff is maybe on the opposite end of the spectrum from your average Jar Jar scene, but is nothing way outside the spectrum that's covered by Star Wars in general.

Ostrander and Duursema have some ability and talent, but their contributions to the EU were just lame. Quinlan Vos is one of the biggest Gary Stu type characters I have ever seen and making him an edgy sometimes good sometimes bad guy who "walks in the shadows" was just lame for a Jedi character. Other EU authors are guilty of this also, but the characters those tow created and/or worked on primarily were just loved by their authors/creators way too much for the stories to be any good. There was never any tension or drama because no matter what they would never let anything bad happen to their precious characters, at least not for too long.

Is that like an art complaint, or what?

More of a reference to how nothing bad ever happened to their favorite characters, who did everything right and always had perfect attentions. Quinlan Vos basically assassinated an important, albeit corrupt, Senator of the Republic and basically nothing happened to him.

Would not be surprised if it's a descendant of Quinlan Vos that founds the Jedi Order.

The descendent of a prequel-era character founding the Jedi Order several thousand years before the prequels? That would surprise the hell out of me.[/quote]

I am half convinced that Korto Vos will travel back in time while evading the Empire to found the Jedi Order.

[lstyer]

Quinlan Vos is one of the biggest Gary Stu type characters I have ever seen and making him an edgy sometimes good sometimes bad guy who "walks in the shadows" was just lame for a Jedi character.

I can see that complaint, though I'm pretty much okay with Quinlan Vos. The trap with Jedi characters is that the the lightside/darkside dichotomy narrows down the number of character "types" that are workable, and sometimes (admittedly unnecessarily) seems to generate characters who fall on one extreme or the other in terms of "Lightsidey Jedi Guy" or "Shadowy Jedi Guy."

There was never any tension or drama because no matter what they would never let anything bad happen to their precious characters, at least not for too long.

I'm not sure that's a fair complaint about particular continuing comic book stories so much as it's a complaint about the very nature of continuing comic book stories. Enjoying a continuing comics series requires a certain level of buy-in, which includes ignoring the fact that Superman isn't going to really die no matter how much kryptonite Lex Luthor has gotten his hands on this time. That's lessened a little bit with Star Wars comics because there's an external timeline in the form of the films that, at least in theory, constrains the comics, as opposed to Superman, where there's really no time constraint at all, but I think it's still there. You have to either accept that main characters in continuing comic book stories aren't in "real" danger or you have to pretend that

More of a reference to how nothing bad ever happened to their favorite characters, who did everything right and always had perfect attentions.

I'll admit it's been a while since I read the Vos stuff, but I don't remember him doing everything right. I assume you meant "perfect intentions," but I don't really remember that about Vos either. In fact, the whole "Quinlan Vos walks in shadow" pretty much necessarily means that he can't have always had perfect intentions because a Jedi who always has perfect intentions isn't going to be gray.

Quinlan Vos basically assassinated an important, albeit corrupt, Senator of the Republic and basically nothing happened to him.

That storyline I don't remember at all, so I'll defer to your description and agree that if that happened, that was kind of dumb.

[Darth Fanboy]

I can see that complaint, though I'm pretty much okay with Quinlan Vos. The trap with Jedi characters is that the the lightside/darkside dichotomy narrows down the number of character "types" that are workable, and sometimes (admittedly unnecessarily) seems to generate characters who fall on one extreme or the other in terms of "Lightsidey Jedi Guy" or "Shadowy Jedi Guy."

I don't have problem with more unique Jedi that don't always do "what a good Jedi would do", however the line with Quinlan Vos was crossed over repeatedly. Quinlan Vos isn't the only instance of EU authors cheapening the concept of "redemption" with a dark side character, and as I said he suffered few consequences for his actions.

I'm not sure that's a fair complaint about particular continuing comic book stories so much as it's a complaint about the very nature of continuing comic book stories. Enjoying a continuing comics series requires a certain level of buy-in, which includes ignoring the fact that Superman isn't going to really die no matter how much kryptonite Lex Luthor has gotten his hands on this time. That's lessened a little bit with Star Wars comics because there's an external timeline in the form of the films that, at least in theory, constrains the comics, as opposed to Superman, where there's really no time constraint at all, but I think it's still there. You have to either accept that main characters in continuing comic book stories aren't in "real" danger or you have to pretend that

Here's why it doesn't work for me in this situation. Keep in mind I owned at one point all nine volumes on the Clone Wars comics (was not a fan of the other Republic comics but the Anakin/Obi Wan stories were pretty good, I am quite familiar with the Vos storylines during this time).

It was a *very big deal* that Luke Skywalker was able to bring his father back to the light at the last moment in Return of the Jedi, Obi Wan and Yoda had both written him off. Luke did something no one thought possible. In the EU, redemptions are practically dime a dozen. Whatever happened to "forever will it dominate your destiny?"

Also, we know that the Jedi are brought down in the Purge, beginning with Order 66. In the RoTS comic we actually see Vos taken out as he stands on top of a Juggernaut. It was intened to be a death but he, once again, got a miracle at a time when no character (other than Yoda or Obi Wan really) was supposed to be safe.

Quinlan had already declared he was leaving the Jedi Order on Saleucami after having, yet again, been redeemed from the dark side while also being complicit in the death of a Jedi Master. Later he gets his miracle escape on Kashyyk and ends up basically getting everything he has ever wanted.

-He gets out of the Jedi Order consequence free, and aside from Aayla Secura there was really no one he was going to mourn that was caught in the Purge.

-He gets to live in seclusion with his wife and child with few people, if any, to bother him. He also is such a good guy that he declares his child will be raised in the light!

-Thee is no record at this point of what happens to the Vos family, which means Ostrander and Duursema can revisit him later and have him do more amazing things. They are almost as bad with Vos as Karen Traviss is with her Mandalorians. (Ironically these particular Gary Stus did not get along at all In-Universe.)

I'll admit it's been a while since I read the Vos stuff, but I don't remember him doing everything right. I assume you meant "perfect intentions," but I don't really remember that about Vos either. In fact, the whole "Quinlan Vos walks in shadow" pretty much necessarily means that he can't have always had perfect intentions because a Jedi who always has perfect intentions isn't going to be gray.

There is a difference between what the intent was behind the Vos Character (good guy who believes that the end justifies the means) and what happened in actuality. I run the risk of repeating myself here so I apologize for that in advance.

-Murder of Senator Viento, while corrupt it was still an assassination.

-Murder of Sheyf Tinte, while acting as part of Count Dooku's group in a plan to get a Confederacy presence on Kiffar Vos initially betrays Dooku but is then convinced otherwise when Vos is convinced to use the dark side of the Force to reveal the truth behind the death of his parents. In anger and rage Vos gives in to the dark side and murders his aunt. While killing a "bad person", Vos still does thigns that should have real consequences but basically gets away with it.

-Complicit in the murder of Oppo Rancisis, his efforts to maintain his cover on both sides allowed Sora Bulq and Anzati Assassins to kill the Republic General on Saleucami.

-Murder of Kharis Fenn, this is another instance where Vos kills someone who is undisputably evil, but rather than take him to justice or simply kill him, Vos decaptitates Fenn and leaves a recording of the murder as a warning to those who oppose Dooku.

All this time Vos is still convinced he has not fallen to the dark side but is "just further in the shadows."

That storyline I don't remember at all, so I'll defer to your description and agree that if that happened, that was kind of dumb.

It was when he was duped into thinking that Senator Viento was the second Sith Lord, he also nearly killed K'Kruhk while doing so.

[lstyer]

It was a *very big deal* that Luke Skywalker was able to bring his father back to the light at the last moment in Return of the Jedi, Obi Wan and Yoda had both written him off. Luke did something no one thought possible. In the EU, redemptions are practically dime a dozen. Whatever happened to "forever will it dominate your destiny?"

In the context of the entire Star Wars movie series I'm not sure we can really trust much of anything Obi-Wan and Yoda say about Vader and the Dark Side to be true. Obi-Wan straight-out lied to Luke about Anakin's fate, Yoda could easily have set him straight but didn't, and they were both grooming him to unknowingly commit patricide. Note, too, that these are the "not dark and edgy" Jedi who don't walk the shadowy path.

For all the talk of people being "lost to the dark side," redemption is pretty cheap in Star Wars. Vader redeemed himself for numerous murders he personally committed as well as complicity in countless more as a major cog in the wheel that was the Galactic Empire by saving the life of his own son. Without getting into a discussion of whether that set the bar too low, it certainly did set the bar low. I mean Vader is a known child murderer and he was redeemed in one scene. If you want to be generous, you can say that Luke worked on him for the better part of a day, but that's about as far as you can go. Not only did saving the life of his own son apparently redeem Vader despite twenty-odd years of evil-doing, he even got to defeat death as a Force ghost, something that countless Jedi who seem not to have slaughtered children by the village-load didn't get.

Also, we know that the Jedi are brought down in the Purge, beginning with Order 66. In the RoTS comic we actually see Vos taken out as he stands on top of a Juggernaut. It was intened to be a death but he, once again, got a miracle at a time when no character (other than Yoda or Obi Wan really) was supposed to be safe.

From Wookieepedia, which is admittedly not an authoritative source:

According to Randy Stradley, the fate of Vos at the end of the Republic series came directly from Lucas. Ostrander had initially considered killing Vos off, and an interview with Duursema in Star Wars Insider before the final issue's release claimed that he died.

If that is accurate, though, then it wasn't necessarily Ostrander and Duursema who saved him.

All this time Vos is still convinced he has not fallen to the dark side but is "just further in the shadows."

What does it matter whether Vos believes he's fallen to the dark side or not? His believing one way or the other doesn't make it so. Then again, look at our main example of what it means to fall to the Dark Side. Anakin Skywalker's slaughter of the Sand People happened in Episode II. He even admitted at the time to being a child murderer:

I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men... but the women, and the children too. They're like animals! And I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!

For a long while after that Anakin was still convinced he had not fallen to the Dark Side. In fact, he apparently didn't fall to the Dark Side till some point in Episode III. If murdering a bunch of non-combatants and kids wasn't sufficient to make Anakin fall, maybe a few assassinations of actual bad guys wasn't enough to make Quinlan fall either.

My point here is Quinlan Vos's arc of Jedi-of-questionable-morality to Dark Sider to redemption doesn't seem out of line with what the films established is possible, and like I said, Quinlan Vos at his worst didn't measure up to pre-fall Anakin.

[Stark]

It doesn't matter how long you've been beating your wife. If you stop, you're instantly a better person.

No court wrote off Vader's crimes; Luke cared about him even before he stopped being a giant asshole. He just turned his back on his selfishness, bitterness and fear when pushed to the edge, as Luke knew he would.

The only thing funnier than Vos and his 99 trips to the Dark Side is his harem of huge titty bitches they squeeze into all the stories, possibly because he looks alarmingly like Michael Bolton and nerds are supposed to identify with him.

[lstyer]

It doesn't matter how long you've been beating your wife. If you stop, you're instantly a better person.

Sure, but how much better? As better as someone who never beat his wife at all? Are you instantly a better person in the times between sessions of beating your wife? Does it matter how many times you repeat that cycle?

No court wrote off Vader's crimes

No, but the Force apparently did because at the end of Return of the Jedi Vader got to come back as a Force Ghost just like every light side Jedi we had seen die up to that point. We didn't see the ghost of Palpatine standing there next to Vader, Obi-Wan and Yoda cackling. Prior to the Prequels, all we saw was that Vader got the default good-guy afterlife because he put aside his murderous ways for fifteen minutes or so and then had the good luck to die before he had the chance to kill some more kids. Now,the Force Ghost of of Palpatine might say it's more accurate that Vader ADJUSTED his murderous ways more than he put them aside, but Palpatine didn't get a Force Ghost, so we won't bother asking him.

After the Prequels, we learn that most Light Side Jedi don't even get to come back as Force Ghosts, so Vader actually got a better than standard good-guy afterlife, and his Force Ghost appeared as Vader appeared in Revenge of the Sith, i.e., after he had slaughtered a village full of non-combatant Sandpeople including kids.

So, yeah, I'd say his crimes were written off.

He just turned his back on his selfishness, bitterness and fear when pushed to the edge, as Luke knew he would.

I'll give you bitterness and fear, but I'm not sure he can be said to have turned his back on selfishness when he killed a guy to save the life of his own son.

[Darth Fanboy]

In the context of the entire Star Wars movie series I'm not sure we can really trust much of anything Obi-Wan and Yoda say about Vader and the Dark Side to be true. Obi-Wan straight-out lied to Luke about Anakin's fate, Yoda could easily have set him straight but didn't, and they were both grooming him to unknowingly commit patricide. Note, too, that these are the "not dark and edgy" Jedi who don't walk the shadowy path.

Aside from not directly revealing Luke's parentage, what else did Obi Wan lie about?

For all the talk of people being "lost to the dark side," redemption is pretty cheap in Star Wars. Vader redeemed himself for numerous murders he personally committed as well as complicity in countless more as a major cog in the wheel that was the Galactic Empire by saving the life of his own son. Without getting into a discussion of whether that set the bar too low, it certainly did set the bar low. I mean Vader is a known child murderer and he was redeemed in one scene. If you want to be generous, you can say that Luke worked on him for the better part of a day, but that's about as far as you can go. Not only did saving the life of his own son apparently redeem Vader despite twenty-odd years of evil-doing, he even got to defeat death as a Force ghost, something that countless Jedi who seem not to have slaughtered children by the village-load didn't get.

Redemption does not equal exoneration, and despite what he did Darth Vader is still reknowned as one of the biggest murderers in galactic history. Nowhere is it demonstrated or stated that one needs to life an entire life of virture to become a Force ghost either. There are a number of undead Sith ghosts after all. (Darth Andeddu and Ajunta Pall to name a couple).

If I wanted to be generous, I would say that the process of Vader thinking about his own son began with their encounter in Empire Strikes back, and that there were years of thoughts going through Vader's head. Stretching back even further if one uses EU sources where Vader learns of Luke's identity. Vader suddenly not only has his son (and for a brief moments his daughter) to consider, but also that connection to Padme. Seeing Palpatine trying to kill his own son is what put Vader over the edge and one could argue that the "redemption" was little more than Vader's own love for his son and family, just like he had for Padme when she was alive. It was a redemption, but not entirely selfless and nothing that changes the fact that Darth Vader did terrible things.

From Wookieepedia, which is admittedly not an authoritative source:

According to Randy Stradley, the fate of Vos at the end of the Republic series came directly from Lucas. Ostrander had initially considered killing Vos off, and an interview with Duursema in Star Wars Insider before the final issue's release claimed that he died.

If that is accurate, though, then it wasn't necessarily Ostrander and Duursema who saved him.

Which is nice and if entirely true limits the author's fault in perpetuating Vos' overrated legacy but that doesn't change the fact that the continuing adventures post Episode III are about as Gary Stu as it gets.

What does it matter whether Vos believes he's fallen to the dark side or not?

Going to stop again briefly here to revisit the line "further into the shadows", because it's just total bullshit. What this line shows is that Quinlan is allowing the ends of his work to justify the almost indefensible means (by Jedi standards) he is undertaking. In Star Wars these actions have tangible and irreversible effects unless you are Quinlan Vos.

His believing one way or the other doesn't make it so. Then again, look at our main example of what it means to fall to the Dark Side. Anakin Skywalker's slaughter of the Sand People happened in Episode II. He even admitted at the time to being a child murderer:

I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead, every single one of them. And not just the men... but the women, and the children too. They're like animals! And I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!

For a long while after that Anakin was still convinced he had not fallen to the Dark Side. In fact, he apparently didn't fall to the Dark Side till some point in Episode III. If murdering a bunch of non-combatants and kids wasn't sufficient to make Anakin fall, maybe a few assassinations of actual bad guys wasn't enough to make Quinlan fall either.

Except Anakin DID FALL, and fell about as hard as any Jedi ever. Anakin Skywalker meanwhile lost his wife, lost his identity, nearly lost his life, lost much of his body, and was forced into the service of one of the worst tyrants in galactic history and as a result did evil things. Darth Vader believed that the end justified the means as well and killed or enslaved countless sentients to achieve a peace that never came.

My point here is Quinlan Vos's arc of Jedi-of-questionable-morality to Dark Sider to redemption doesn't seem out of line with what the films established is possible, and like I said, Quinlan Vos at his worst didn't measure up to pre-fall Anakin.

What Quinlan Vos did isn't "questionable", more accurate terms include "criminal", "reprehensible", and "evil" to name a few.

[Darth Fanboy]

Sure, but how much better? As better as someone who never beat his wife at all? Are you instantly a better person in the times between sessions of beating your wife? Does it matter how many times you repeat that cycle?

Are you so dense that you cannot see that a person who stops committing crimes is improving their moral standing? Don't strawman Stark's position by distorting his position.

No, but the Force apparently did...........

Stopping you there because you are making some very big assumptions. First of all, coming back as a Force Ghost isn't stated anywhere to be reserved to those on the light side of the Force, and the novelization implies that it is a skill. One taught to Obi Wan and Yoda by Qui Gon Jinn at that. Given that, it is reasonable to believe Obi Wan taught the same ability to the "redeemed" Anakin Skywalker.

I'll give you bitterness and fear, but I'm not sure he can be said to have turned his back on selfishness when he killed a guy to save the life of his own son.

I can agree with you on this in part, especially given the idea I previously expressed about how Luke was a living connection to Padme. However, he did sacrifice his own life which is a selfless act.

[Eleventh Century Remnant]

Vader was not redeemed by the love of his son.

Vader was not redeemed by the memory of his wife and his hopes for the galaxy.

Vader was not redeemed by his crisis of conscience, at seeing his hate mirrored and what he had become.

Vader was not even redeemed by self- sacrifice, although that was necessary- just not sufficient.

Vader was redeemed because he dropped the Dark Lord and Master of the Sith down a reactor shaft.

Turning against and destroying the darkness- that alone was enough, and it was enough.

That seems to me to be the truth of the matter.

[Darth Fanboy]

The only problem I have with that idea is that it doesn't explain WHY Vader turned on Palpatine. He didn't do it without a very compelling reason.

[lstyer]

Aside from not directly revealing Luke's parentage, what else did Obi Wan lie about?

Well, I don't think that Vader wanted Luke to have his lightsaber when Luke was old enough. Seriously, though, I think that lying to Luke about who Vader was while grooming Luke to kill Vader is a big enough lie to throw anything he said on the topic into question.

Redemption does not equal exoneration, and despite what he did Darth Vader is still reknowned as one of the biggest murderers in galactic history.

Metaphysically he seemed to have been exonerated.

It was a redemption, but not entirely selfless and nothing that changes the fact that Darth Vader did terrible things.

That's exactly my point. In Star Wars you can be redeemed even if you did terrible things. So why shouldn't Quinlan Vos be redeemed, too?

In Star Wars these actions have tangible and irreversible effects unless you are Quinlan Vos.

I'm not so sure that's the case.

Except Anakin DID FALL, and fell about as hard as any Jedi ever. Anakin Skywalker meanwhile lost his wife, lost his identity, nearly lost his life, lost much of his body, and was forced into the service of one of the worst tyrants in galactic history and as a result did evil things. Darth Vader believed that the end justified the means as well and killed or enslaved countless sentients to achieve a peace that never came.

Anakin fell like two or three years after he slaughtered the Sandpeople. He pretty clearly ran around more-or-less consequence-free during those years until he reached the point that he actually fell. He slaughtered a bunch of noncombatants for no reason other than anger and vengeance, he told Padme about it, and then he went back to his Jedi adventures joking and laughing with Obi-Wan and then Padme married him. He clearly did not fall from murdering a bunch of Sandpeople. I fail to see any tangible and irreversible effects from those murders. Tangible and irreversible effect on Anakin, anyway -- there were clearly some tangible and irreversible effects on the Sandpeople, and not just on the men, but on the women and the children, too.

And even when Anakin did get around to falling, years after the slaughter on Tatooine, he lost his wife not as some karmic comeuppance for his fall, he lost her because she gave up on life. Unless you're suggesting that karma killed Padme just to fuck with Anakin. Anakin didn't lose much of his body because he fell. He lost much of his body because he made a foolish tactical choice in a lightsaber duel. It's not as if his arm and legs fell off because he was a bad guy, Obi-Wan cut them off because Anakin exposed them when he tried to jump over Obi-Wan. He nearly died not because he was a bad guy, but because Obi-Wan left him lying helpless next to a lava flow. He voluntarily surrendered his identity as part of becoming Sith, though I suppose that Obi-Wan hadn't left him to bake he might have kept his real name in public. Yeah, bad stuff happened, and it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't fallen, but I don't think it was some kind of karmic retribution.

What Quinlan Vos did isn't "questionable", more accurate terms include "criminal", "reprehensible", and "evil" to name a few.

Reread what I said. I described Vos's arc as questionable-to-Dark-Sider-to-redemption. I'm saying that he was at best questionable and at worst a true Dark Sider. I think that fairly accounts for "evil." "Criminal" I don't really give a damn about. Luke Skywalker's blowing up the Death Star was criminal, but I doubt you'd consider it poor storytelling that he wasn't punished for that.

However, even with all that said, I don't recall Vos, even at his worst, committing evil acts on the scale that Anakin did even before Anakin fell. The slaughter of the Sandpeople alone, which clearly happened before Anakin fell, out-evils anything I can recall Vos doing, then you add in another couple decades of evil.

Are you so dense that you cannot see that a person who stops committing crimes is improving their moral standing? Don't strawman Stark's position by distorting his position.

I don't believe that I'm distorting Stark's position. Vader's redemption takes place over less than half an hour of screen time. Can we really fairly say that Vader stopped being evil over the course of half an hour?

I happened to have my Star Wars DVDs near the computer, so I tossed in RotJ. The DVD packaging lists a run time of 136 minutes. At one hour and fifty minutes, Vader is actively trying to turn Luke to the Dark Side:

Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can save your friends. Yes. Your thoughts betray you. Your feelings for them are strong. Especially for . . . sister. So, you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the Dark Side, then perhaps she will.

Seriously. There are like 25 minutes left in the movie at that point, and he's actively attempting to put his son on the same path of evil he is on and making contingency plans to do the same thing to his daughter if it doesn't work out with Luke.

I'll agree with Stark that a person who stops committing crimes is improving his moral standing. But I don't have any problem also believing that I'd like to see more than half an hour without a crime before I give that person the benefit of the doubt.

Stopping you there because you are making some very big assumptions.

I think it's more accurate to say I'm drawing conclusions from the evidence we see on screen, but I'll concede that the EU muddies the water on that.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that Anakin wasn't redeemed. I think it's pretty clear that, objectively speaking, he was redeemed. I'm not even arguing that he shouldn't have been redeemed. I'm all for redemption. My whole point is that Anakin sets the bar for redemption in Star Wars and he sets it very low. You are arguing that Quinlan Vos shouldn't have been redeemed. That's what I'm disagreeing with. What Vos did was less evil than what Anakin did, and there was less of it, so if Anakin can be redeemed over the course of 25 I don't see why Vos shouldn't have been redeemed. Based on the standard set by Anakin's redemption, nearly anyone should be eligible.

[Darth Fanboy]

Well, I don't think that Vader wanted Luke to have his lightsaber when Luke was old enough. Seriously, though, I think that lying to Luke about who Vader was while grooming Luke to kill Vader is a big enough lie to throw anything he said on the topic into question.

I think that is just part of the bigger "Anakin killed by Vader" lie that you have already alluded to. I won't try to defend the the fact that the line was probably written and put into play before Lucas had decided to make Vader and Anakin the same person, because in-universe that doesn't matter.

Metaphysically he seemed to have been exonerated.

I'll go into in more detail later on, but please understand that becoming a Force Ghost is not something that just happens because one is of the Light Side or because one has lived a life of virtue.

That's exactly my point. In Star Wars you can be redeemed even if you did terrible things. So why shouldn't Quinlan Vos be redeemed, too?

First of all, the redemption of Anakin Skywalker as it happened was supposed to be impossible. Quinlan Vos is part of a greater problem in the EU where redeeming Darksiders takes place too often. Secondly, as I have already stated, Quinlan never suffered any consequences from his actions. Thirdly, the redemption came too easily for my tastes. If it had been well executed in the story then I wouldn't have much problem with it, however Ostrander/Duursema's favorite character emerged unscathed through almost every tragedy and when authors turn their favorite characters into blatant Mary Sue/Gary Stu type chracters they become no fun to read about whatsoever.

I'm not so sure that's the case.

What lasting effects on Vos did his exposure to the dark side have?

Anakin fell like two or three years after he slaughtered the Sandpeople. He pretty clearly ran around more-or-less consequence-free during those years until he reached the point that he actually fell. He slaughtered a bunch of noncombatants for no reason other than anger and vengeance, he told Padme about it, and then he went back to his Jedi adventures joking and laughing with Obi-Wan and then Padme married him. He clearly did not fall from murdering a bunch of Sandpeople. I fail to see any tangible and irreversible effects from those murders. Tangible and irreversible effect on Anakin, anyway -- there were clearly some tangible and irreversible effects on the Sandpeople, and not just on the men, but on the women and the children, too.

So you don't notice anything bad happen to Anakin after he helps destroy the Jedi Temple and salughter the Jedi within? You don't notice how his paranoia consumes him, how he pledges himself to Sith teachings in selfish desperation? Anakin's fall happens gradually between AoTC and RoTS. See, Vos finds himself in a similar situation when he starts undergoing instruction from Dooku when he gives in to the dark side and murders his aunt, that should have been a similar tipping point like when Palpatine convinces Anakin to give in on killing Dooku. It wasn't long after snipping of Dooku's head with lightsaber scissors that Anakin's fall takes place.

Vos meanwhile ends up being instructed in Sith teachings by Dooku, commits horrible crimes, and then just goes back like nothing happened after Saleucami. It's not as if he was somehow this Jedi master with great control.

And even when Anakin did get around to falling, years after the slaughter on Tatooine, he lost his wife not as some karmic comeuppance for his fall, he lost her because she gave up on life. Unless you're suggesting that karma killed Padme just to fuck with Anakin.

I am not going to have this stupid "Padme just gave up and fell over and died while completely healthy" argument again with anyone. Especially when after falling he attacked her he became consumed by paranoia and attacked her. By the time Anakin ended up on Mustafar he had already killed multiple Jedi Masters and slaughtered younglings. Yes, Anakin did not fall all the way to the dark side after Tattooine for whatever reason. How does that change what happened to him during hte events of RoTS where he was actively pushed to the Dark Side by a Sith Lord? (which is what happened to Vos).

Anakin didn't lose much of his body because he fell. He lost much of his body because he made a foolish tactical choice in a lightsaber duel. It's not as if his arm and legs fell off because he was a bad guy, Obi-Wan cut them off because Anakin exposed them when he tried to jump over Obi-Wan. He nearly died not because he was a bad guy, but because Obi-Wan left him lying helpless next to a lava flow. He voluntarily surrendered his identity as part of becoming Sith, though I suppose that Obi-Wan hadn't left him to bake he might have kept his real name in public. Yeah, bad stuff happened, and it wouldn't have happened if he hadn't fallen, but I don't think it was some kind of karmic retribution.

He lost his body in a duel that he started because he fell to the Dark Side and declared Obi Wan and all Jedi his sworn enemies. If he doesn't fall he doesn't pick that fight, that's pretty fucking obvious.

Reread what I said. I described Vos's arc as questionable-to-Dark-Sider-to-redemption. I'm saying that he was at best questionable and at worst a true Dark Sider. I think that fairly accounts for "evil." "Criminal" I don't really give a damn about. Luke Skywalker's blowing up the Death Star was criminal, but I doubt you'd consider it poor storytelling that he wasn't punished for that.

If you consider brutal murder "questionable" then you need to rethink your morals.

Wow, so you're one of those idiots? Luke Skywalker destroying a Death Star, a legitimate military target with enemy combatants on board, is not a criminal act. Unless the crime is preventing the Death Star and its crew from destroying more planets.

However, even with all that said, I don't recall Vos, even at his worst, committing evil acts on the scale that Anakin did even before Anakin fell. The slaughter of the Sandpeople alone, which clearly happened before Anakin fell, out-evils anything I can recall Vos doing, then you add in another couple decades of evil.

YEs, Anakin Skywalker did worse things, how does that negate or lessen what Vos did? How does that change that he gave in to the dark side and then partook in teachings from Count Dooku?

I don't believe that I'm distorting Stark's position. Vader's redemption takes place over less than half an hour of screen time. Can we really fairly say that Vader stopped being evil over the course of half an hour? (Snip the rest)

If you limit yourself to the screen time in RoTJ, you're not doing yourself any favors.

Like I said, Vader had time in between films to think about the dynamic between him and the son he never knew he had, more if you include EU accounts of his first learning of Luke's true identity. I would say Vader had about a year between the events on Cloud City and their reunion on the Forest Moon. I also think that Vader's attachment to his wife, that got him so deep into his mess to begin with, fostered a connection to his son that ultimately led him to do something noble and realize what he had truly lost. I won't try to assume exactly what was going through Vader's head, but it is pretty obvious that he didn't want his son to die.

I think it's more accurate to say I'm drawing conclusions from the evidence we see on screen, but I'll concede that the EU muddies the water on that.

It doesn't muddy the water, it blows it out of the water completely. Qui Gon's conversation with Obi Wan per the end of the RoTS novelization confirms that his presence after death is not just something that happens to light side users.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that Anakin wasn't redeemed. I think it's pretty clear that, objectively speaking, he was redeemed. I'm not even arguing that he shouldn't have been redeemed. I'm all for redemption. My whole point is that Anakin sets the bar for redemption in Star Wars and he sets it very low.

And you're entitled to hold an opinion, which doesn't change the fact that Obi Wan and Yoda had written Anakin Skywalker off completely and that before shitty EU authors we were led to believe that the dark side "will forever dominate your destiny."

You are arguing that Quinlan Vos shouldn't have been redeemed. That's what I'm disagreeing with. What Vos did was less evil than what Anakin did, and there was less of it, so if Anakin can be redeemed over the course of 25 I don't see why Vos shouldn't have been redeemed. Based on the standard set by Anakin's redemption, nearly anyone should be eligible.

I am not saying Vos should not have been redeemed. I am saying that it was too easy for him to be redeemed, and that it was a byproduct of authors falling too deeply in love with their famous character. Quinlan Vos never lost anything except Aayla Secura, and I imagine that if she hadn't suffered a grisly on-screen film death they would have tried to keep her alive too.

And as for Anakin's redemption "setting a standard"...screen time blah blah blah whatever the fuck you want to ramble about. Going strictly by the films, before the EU was ntroduced, it was implied that such a redemption was impossible. That is what made the redemption so extraordinary in the film, but leave it to the shittier EU writers to take a concept that made the films good and just piss all over it.

[lstyer]

I think that is just part of the bigger "Anakin killed by Vader" lie that you have already alluded to.

So do I. That was a joke. That's why I said "Seriously, though" after I said it.

I'll go into in more detail later on, but please understand that becoming a Force Ghost is not something that just happens because one is of the Light Side or because one has lived a life of virtue.

I'd argue that like you mentioned above about Obi-Wan's lies being a product of Lucas changing his mind about how the story worked, the Force Ghost thing changed over time, too. When all we had to judge was the original trilogy, I think Anakin's Force Ghost was pretty clearly intended to show that Anakin was redeemed. Even if I grant you that reappearance as a Force Ghost has nothing to do with one's light side status, and I'm really not sure I do, I think the fact that Anakin's Force Ghost was hanging out with Obi-Wan and Yoda having a big laugh at the Ewok party was definitely intended as a signal to the audience that Luke succeeded in redeeming Vader and bringing him back to the Light Side.

First of all, the redemption of Anakin Skywalker as it happened was supposed to be impossible.

Supposed by whom? By Obi-Wan and Yoda, who we know were willing to lie, by commission and ommission respectively, about Vader's history and identity in order to manipulate Luke Skywalker in to committing patricide. Their telling Luke it was impossible doesn't carry much weight.

Quinlan Vos is part of a greater problem in the EU where redeeming Darksiders takes place too often.

That sounds to me more like a problem of repeating stories, like the "Superweapon of the week" thing in the early E.U. than a problem with redemption itself.

Secondly, as I have already stated, Quinlan never suffered any consequences from his actions.

And as I said, neither did Vader suffer any consequences for falling. He suffered consequences for losing a fight, and consequences for his best friend and mentor leaving him lying next to a lava flow, and consequences for his wife deciding that without her man she had no reason to live.

Thirdly, the redemption came too easily for my tastes.

Well, that's a taste issue, and really isn't up for debate. You like a story or you don't, and that's fine either way.

What lasting effects on Vos did his exposure to the dark side have?

My point wasn't that Vos's exposure to the Dark Side had effects, my point was that Vader's exposure didn't have direct effects. Especially his exposure to the Dark Side the time he slaughtered a village full of Sandpeople. Which, I'll repeat, happened literally years before he fell.

So you don't notice anything bad happen to Anakin after he helps destroy the Jedi Temple and salughter the Jedi within?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Turning to evil wasn't the proximate cause of most of the bad stuff that happened to Anakin after her turned evil.

Anakin's fall happens gradually between AoTC and RoTS.

That's kind of my point. If one can murder a whole village full of non-combatants in a rage and not actually fall to the Dark Side, and suffer no consequences, I don't buy the argument that committing evil acts necessarily carry consequences with them.

I am not going to have this stupid "Padme just gave up and fell over and died while completely healthy" argument again with anyone.

I think it's pretty stupid too, but it's pretty clearly what seems to have happened. The damned medical droid even said as much.

How does that change what happened to him during hte events of RoTS where he was actively pushed to the Dark Side by a Sith Lord? (which is what happened to Vos).

Maybe it means Palpatine was better at actively pushing people to the Dark Side than Dooku, so his attempts "took" while Dooku's faded.

He lost his body in a duel that he started because he fell to the Dark Side and declared Obi Wan and all Jedi his sworn enemies. If he doesn't fall he doesn't pick that fight, that's pretty fucking obvious.

Sure, and if does fall, and does pick that fight, and wins it, he doesn't lose his body. That's pretty fucking obvious too. Losing the fight is why he lost his body, not turning to the Dark Side. Yes, turning to the Dark Side was a necessary precondition to Anakin's having that particular fight, but it wasn't a necessary precondition to his losing it. Even before he fell Anakin was reckless, so while it's fair to say that he wouldn't have been fighting Obi-Wan if he hadn't fallen, I'm not sure it's fair to say that he wouldn't have been making bad tactical choices.

If you consider brutal murder "questionable" then you need to rethink your morals.

If he was committing brutal murder

Wow, so you're one of those idiots? Luke Skywalker destroying a Death Star, a legitimate military target with enemy combatants on board, is not a criminal act.

An idiot that recognizes that the government determines what is and isn't "criminal"? Yeah, I guess I am one of those idiots. I don't know of any government that doesn't consider it a crime for a non-governmental entity to destroy government property. I'll agree that Luke Skywalker's destruction of the Death Star was a morally virtuous act, but it was also criminal. Or are you one of those idiots that believes that the moral standing of an act is determined by that act's legal status?

Unless the crime is preventing the Death Star and its crew from destroying more planets.

No, dude, the crime is, at a minimum, destruction of government property, and probably many, many counts of murder. Without getting into specific legal definitions, in a criminal context "murder" basically means "unlawful killing." Again, I can't imagine that the Empire's laws were written in a way that recognized that a civilian could kill everyone on a government-owned space station by blowing it up without that being unlawful. Morally speaking, I'd say that Luke's killing the crew of the Death Star was justifiable for exactly the reason you mentioned -- to prevent that crew from killing many billions of people. But legally speaking, it was absolutely illegal.

Why does the capability to distinguishing between "immoral" and "criminal" render me an idiot?

YEs, Anakin Skywalker did worse things, how does that negate or lessen what Vos did?

It doesn't. I'm not contrasting them. You are totally missing my point. My point is that both did bad things, both got redeemed. My next point is that you are okay with the worse guy getting redeemed, but not okay with the bad, but not quite as bad guy getting redeemed.

How does that change that he gave in to the dark side and then partook in teachings from Count Dooku?

It doesn't. All that it does is show that one can do a lot worse than giving in to the Dark Side and "partake in teachings from Count Dooku" and still be redeemed. Once more, I'm not arguing that Vos didn't fall to the Dark Side.

If you limit yourself to the screen time in RoTJ, you're not doing yourself any favors.

Within that half hour he was actively trying to turn Luke to the Dark Side. He announced to Luke that if Luke wouldn't turn, Vader would try to turn Leia. What do you think he was planning to do with Luke if Luke wouldn't turn? Do you think he was planning to just let Luke take off to continue the business of trying to bring down the Empire? Of course not. He was planning to either turn Luke to the Dark Side or to kill him. In the end, he stopped Palpatine from killing Luke, but not half an hour before that he was holding that possibility in reserve.

I won't try to assume exactly what was going through Vader's head, but it is pretty obvious that he didn't want his son to die.

I will agree that he didn't want Luke to die, but I think that right up until the moment that he took action to stop Palpatine he was willing to let Luke die or even, if necessary, kill him. I don't believe Vader would have been happy to see Luke die, but I think that until he made that very important final decision he would have been willing.

And you're entitled to hold an opinion, which doesn't change the fact that Obi Wan and Yoda had written Anakin Skywalker off completely and that before shitty EU authors we were led to believe that the dark side "will forever dominate your destiny."

Obi-Wan and Anakin, when the subject turned to Vader, were liars. I think it's fair to conclude that their perspective on Anakin Skywalker was clouded at best.

That is what made the redemption so extraordinary in the film, but leave it to the shittier EU writers to take a concept that made the films good and just piss all over it.

Oh, that's not fair to the E.U. writers. Lucas himself took a lot of concepts that made the original films good and pissed all over them, too.

[Knife]

Vader was not redeemed by the love of his son.

Vader was not redeemed by the memory of his wife and his hopes for the galaxy.

Vader was not redeemed by his crisis of conscience, at seeing his hate mirrored and what he had become.

Vader was not even redeemed by self- sacrifice, although that was necessary- just not sufficient.

Vader was redeemed because he dropped the Dark Lord and Master of the Sith down a reactor shaft.

Turning against and destroying the darkness- that alone was enough, and it was enough.

That seems to me to be the truth of the matter.

Thematically it was The Choice not necessarily the act. In which, the reasons he did it, the motivations, are as important as the act. Anakin had a choice in RotS and choice self service and power, he choice personal power to force the universe to conform to his plans. In RotJ he had a very similar choice and chose selfless service, sacrificing himself so others could do what they needed without him.

Being the cure to the disease of Palpatine, while important in a 'cycle of life' type way, doesn't mean that the reasons he did it aren't important. The story is heavy in the themes of fate and choice. Consequences of your actions and a second chance.

[Darth Fanboy]

So do I. That was a joke. That's why I said "Seriously, though" after I said it.

It was a good point though I hadn't considered. Credit where credit is due.

I'd argue that like you mentioned above about Obi-Wan's lies being a product of Lucas changing his mind about how the story worked, the Force Ghost thing changed over time, too.

Agreed except I admitted that I could not use that defense for an in-universe argument.

When all we had to judge was the original trilogy, I think Anakin's Force Ghost was pretty clearly intended to show that Anakin was redeemed. Even if I grant you that reappearance as a Force Ghost has nothing to do with one's light side status, and I'm really not sure I do, I think the fact that Anakin's Force Ghost was hanging out with Obi-Wan and Yoda having a big laugh at the Ewok party was definitely intended as a signal to the audience that Luke succeeded in redeeming Vader and bringing him back to the Light Side.

There are dark side Force Ghosts too, so reappearing after death is not exclusive ot the light side, however it is likely that the method Qui Gon and subsequently Obi Wan use is a light side technique I will concede that. But remember, redemption in the Force is not exoneration for what Vader did and had he survived he would not have been simply allowed to walk away from being Darth Vader, I don't care what that shitty RoTJ Infinities comic says .

Supposed by whom? By Obi-Wan and Yoda, who we know were willing to lie, by commission and ommission respectively, about Vader's history and identity in order to manipulate Luke Skywalker in to committing patricide. Their telling Luke it was impossible doesn't carry much weight.

Oh for fuck's sake, one lie rooted in truth designed to protect the last hope they had. What good would it have done Luke to tell him that Vader was his father right away? Especially if the kid lets it out somewhere and the news spreads uncontrolled? This does not make Obi Wan and Yoda chronic liars and I would hope that their body of work would show you that they to have good intentions.

That sounds to me more like a problem of repeating stories, like the "Superweapon of the week" thing in the early E.U. than a problem with redemption itself.

Like I said, I think redemption cheapens the moment when Vader turns in RoTJ. I have a greater problem with its frequency in the EU and yes the "Superweapon of the week" thing can be pretty damn annoying as well. Remember this whole debate started because OStrander and Durrsema are, in my opinion, total hacks who fall too much in love with their character. Never said they were the only ones.

And as I said, neither did Vader suffer any consequences for falling. He suffered consequences for losing a fight, and consequences for his best friend and mentor leaving him lying next to a lava flow, and consequences for his wife deciding that without her man she had no reason to live.

Don't be fucking stupid, all of those things happened because Anakin sided with Palpatine over Windu in the Chancellor's office.

My point wasn't that Vos's exposure to the Dark Side had effects, my point was that Vader's exposure didn't have direct effects. Especially his exposure to the Dark Side the time he slaughtered a village full of Sandpeople. Which, I'll repeat, happened literally years before he fell.

If you want to dodge the question that's fine.

So you don't notice anything bad happen to Anakin after he helps destroy the Jedi Temple and salughter the Jedi within?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Turning to evil wasn't the proximate cause of most of the bad stuff that happened to Anakin after her turned evil.[/quote]

If Anakin doesn't take Palpatine's side and fall to the dark side, NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN. He doesn't help kill Windu, he doesn't kill younglings, he doesn't slaughter the Separatist leaders on Mustafar, choke out Padme, or fight and be left debilitated by Obi Wan.

Anakin's fall happens gradually between AoTC and RoTS.

That's kind of my point. If one can murder a whole village full of non-combatants in a rage and not actually fall to the Dark Side, and suffer no consequences, I don't buy the argument that committing evil acts necessarily carry consequences with them.

Except I didn't list one incident with Vos, and I did make note of the fact that Vos didn't just do something wrong, he did so while under the direct influence of a Sith Lord. You can keep going back to the sand people all you want. Please keep in mind that Anakin was also being mentored and steered by Palpatine during that entire time as well.

I think it's pretty stupid too, but it's pretty clearly what seems to have happened. The damned medical droid even said as much.

I will say this, healthy humans can't just give up and die of straight sadness. THe droid's diagnosis failed and later EU sources indicate damage to her throat later during autopsies. (Coruscant Nights II). Furthermore, Captain Typho (who has seen Jedi in action whenthe droid has not, or has not necessarily been programmed with knowledge of what the Force can do) comes to the determination that the damage could have only been caused by a force choke, a unique wound that can only happen under very rare circumstances.

Maybe it means Palpatine was better at actively pushing people to the Dark Side than Dooku, so his attempts "took" while Dooku's faded.

Dooku had many acolytes, including several former Jedi such as Sora Bulq.

Sure, and if does fall, and does pick that fight, and wins it, he doesn't lose his body. That's pretty fucking obvious too. Losing the fight is why he lost his body, not turning to the Dark Side. Yes, turning to the Dark Side was a necessary precondition to Anakin's having that particular fight, but it wasn't a necessary precondition to his losing it. Even before he fell Anakin was reckless, so while it's fair to say that he wouldn't have been fighting Obi-Wan if he hadn't fallen, I'm not sure it's fair to say that he wouldn't have been making bad tactical choices.

But going to the dark side was necessary for killing Windu (which allowed Palpatine to survive and continue his plot), killing the Younglings and destroying the Jedi Temple, and choking Padme which ultimately contributed to her death (via internal injury or via the dumbass sadness argument).

The fight itself? Don't be an idiot, The fight NEVER happens if Anakin doesn't fall, if he never fights then he never is injured. Please tell me that particular bit of logic isn't to much for you to grasp.

If he was committing brutal murder

He cut off a guys head and then left a recording as a message to those who oppose Count Dooku, he nearly cuts his aunt (who, while evil, was also at the time the sitting ruler of two worlds) in half at the torso,

An idiot that recognizes that the government determines what is and isn't "criminal"? Yeah, I guess I am one of those idiots. I don't know of any government that doesn't consider it a crime for a non-governmental entity to destroy government property. I'll agree that Luke Skywalker's destruction of the Death Star was a morally virtuous act, but it was also criminal. Or are you one of those idiots that believes that the moral standing of an act is determined by that act's legal status?

I don't believe the destruction of the Death Star was criminal because the Rebels and Empire were fighting a war, and the Death Star was a legitimate military target.

It doesn't. I'm not contrasting them. You are totally missing my point. My point is that both did bad things, both got redeemed. My next point is that you are okay with the worse guy getting redeemed, but not okay with the bad, but not quite as bad guy getting redeemed.

It doesn't. All that it does is show that one can do a lot worse than giving in to the Dark Side and "partake in teachings from Count Dooku" and still be redeemed. Once more, I'm not arguing that Vos didn't fall to the Dark Side.

But both did not suffer. In Star Wars, falling to the dark side has tangible effects on body and mind. Getting back to the beginnings of this, Ostrander and Duursema are for whatever reason unable to allow anything bad to happen to their prized character.

Within that half hour he .......

Stopping there, because you are still ignoring events taking place before RoTJ and treating the confrontation on Endor as the only opportunity Vader has had to dwell on this. Vader is actively trying to turn Luke because he does want his son to join with him, and while Vader might think that he wants the galaxy more as soon as he sees Luke being attacked by Palpatine he realizes that it was his son he cared about more after all.

I will agree that he didn't want Luke to die, but I think that right up until the moment that he took action to stop Palpatine he was willing to let Luke die or even, if necessary, kill him. I don't believe Vader would have been happy to see Luke die, but I think that until he made that very important final decision he would have been willing.

Except that as soon as Vader had the opportunity to watch Luke die, he didn't allow it to happen. HE didn't want to kill Luke on Cloud City, he never really came close to killing him on the Death Star either.

Obi-Wan and Anakin, when the subject turned to Vader, were liars. I think it's fair to conclude that their perspective on Anakin Skywalker was clouded at best.

Aside from the truth about Anakin = Vader, misinformation they had deemed necessarry to protect Luke from the Emperor and Vader, what did they lie about?

[lstyer]

But remember, redemption in the Force is not exoneration for what Vader did

Once you're dead metaphysical redemption seems like the only kind that matters.

Oh for fuck's sake, one lie rooted in truth designed to protect the last hope they had.

One pretty big lie, and not a lie told to Luke so that he could live a peaceful life. A lie told to Luke so that he would commit patricide on Obi-Wan's behalf.

What good would it have done Luke to tell him that Vader was his father right away?

Even if telling Luke the truth about Vader's identity was a problem, he didn't have to say that Vader "betrayed and murdered your father." That wasn't casually chosen wording, that was wording intended to incite Luke to eventually kill Vader.

Don't be fucking stupid, all of those things happened because Anakin sided with Palpatine over Windu in the Chancellor's office.

Sure. And they also happened because Qui-Gon took Anakin from Tatooine. But each of those events also happened because of particular later actions on Anakin's part.

If you want to dodge the question that's fine.

I didn't dodge the question. You dodged my answer.

If Anakin doesn't take Palpatine's side and fall to the dark side, NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.

And if Qui-Gon doesn't take Anakin away form Tatooine, NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.

You can keep going back to the sand people all you want.

I'll probably keep going back to it. It's a pretty big event, a pretty major piece of evil, a pretty clear embrace of the Dark Side and it had no visible negative consequences for Anakin.

Dooku had many acolytes, including several former Jedi such as Sora Bulq.

I wasn't talking quantity turning folks to the Dark Side, I was talking quality.

The fight itself? Don't be an idiot, The fight NEVER happens if Anakin doesn't fall, if he never fights then he never is injured. Please tell me that particular bit of logic isn't to much for you to grasp.

The logic you fail to grasp is that getting in that falling to the Dark Side isn't what cost Anakin his limbs. There were numerous intervening events each of which could have turned out differently. I'll list a few possibilities by way of illustration.

1) Anakin falls to the Dark Side, Padme doesn't follow him to Mustafar. Anakin keeps his limbs.
2) Anakin falls, Padme follows, Obi-Wan doesn't stow away. Anakin keeps his limbs.
3) Anakin falls, Padme follows, Obi-Wan stows away, Anakin wins their fight. Anakin keeps his limbs.

Anakin losing his limbs was not the natural consequence of his falling to the Dark Side. It was the natural consequence of Obi-Wan slicing Anakin up when Anakin tried that jump maneuver against Obi-Wan when Obi-Wan had the high ground. Why is that so difficult for you grasp?

I don't believe the destruction of the Death Star was criminal because the Rebels and Empire were fighting a war, and the Death Star was a legitimate military target.

Well if you're on the jury for a Rebel who is charged criminally for attacking a military target you can vote to acquit. I would vote to acquit too. Nevertheless I doubt that Imperial law recognizes the Rebellion's right to declare war and attack military targets.

But both did not suffer. In Star Wars, falling to the dark side has tangible effects on body and mind.

Immediate effects on the mind I might give you, but I'm not sure what immediate effects on the body it has. The most dramatic physical effects we saw were on Palpatine, and we don't have any clear idea how long he had been a Dark Sider before he started looking like he did at the end of RotS. You just plain haven't convinced me that falling to the Dark Side magically caused Anakin's limbs to fall off. Darth Maul didn't seem to manifest any tangible effects on his body from his being a Dark Sider. And Dooku was explicitly a fallen Jedi, and I didn't see any tangible effects on his body. I just don't see the evidence on screen to back the claim that falling to the Dark Side has tangible effects on the body.

Vader is actively trying to turn Luke because he does want his son to join with him

Right. And wanting Luke to join him on the Dark Side is not good. Trying to corrupt your child to the cause of evil is evil. Trying to get Luke to join him in the Dark Side is a sign that Vader is acting as an agent of the Dark Side.

Except that as soon as Vader had the opportunity to watch Luke die, he didn't allow it to happen. HE didn't want to kill Luke on Cloud City, he never really came close to killing him on the Death Star either.

You know, I'll give you that. Once he knew who Luke was, Vader didn't make any serious attempts to kill him. But, like I said, almost to the end he was sincerely trying to turn Luke to the Dark Side, which is still an evil act.

Aside from the truth about Anakin = Vader, misinformation they had deemed necessarry to protect Luke from the Emperor and Vader, what did they lie about?

I'm satisfied that telling Luke that Vader "betrayed and murdered" Luke's father is enough to cast doubt on anything they say to Luke on the topic of Anakin or his fall. I will give them credit that they actually believed that Vader couldn't be redeemed and weren't just saying that so in the hopes that Luke would kill his own father in spite of the possibility of Anakin's redemption. But their believing it doesn't make it so. In the Episode II, Yoda himself says "The Dark Side clouds everything. Impossible to see, the future is." If anything the Dark Side is even stronger by the time of the original trilogy. Maybe the Dark Side was still preventing Yoda from foreseeing the possibility of Anakin's redemption.

[Darth Fanboy]

Once you're dead metaphysical redemption seems like the only kind that matters.

And Quinlan Vos never died, and while he was under Dooku's influence he betrayed Republic secrets to the Separatists, attacked and injured fellow Jedi, and killed a member of the Republic Senate. He met with a council of Jedi, was given time to rest, and then given the title of General and sent back into battle. This goes back to my loathing of Ostrander and Duursema. BEcause Quinlan going back to the Republic after spending time as a murderous envoy of Dooku was basically

Vos: "I'm sorry I was just trying to kill a Sith Lord no foolin! Please let me back!"

Mace Windu: "Okay well take some time off first and then get ready, we need to put you in charge of an army."

Maybe i'm oversimplifying the event but it was an incredibly weak transition and indicative of the author's inability to competently write a character with shifting allegiances. There were no consequences for Vos with the Jedi Council, and Vos's own actions would later lead to the death of Oppo Rancisis and he would also attempt to murder his own master, a member of the Jedi Council, in an attempt to maintain his cover.

The one part where Vos's redemption makes total sense is when Dooku attempts to convince Vos that Khaleen is betraying him and orders Vos to kill her, but leading up to that we see Vos do everything he can to discover and kill the second Sith and build a solid cover to fool Dooku and then suddenly, when the author demands it, he abandons that with no hesitation. The authors want their character to do things but they can't be fucked to do it in a way that makes sense. There was no real drama in the moment because I knew that there was no way Quinlan Vos would ever be allowed to do anything short of "bad ass perfect edgy in the shadows Jedi" by his doting creators.

One pretty big lie, and not a lie told to Luke so that he could live a peaceful life. A lie told to Luke so that he would commit patricide on Obi-Wan's behalf.

I'm pretty sure Obi Wan's goal wasn't because he wanted to see a kid kill his own father, Vader being a tryant responsible for opppression on a galactic scale.

Even if telling Luke the truth about Vader's identity was a problem, he didn't have to say that Vader "betrayed and murdered your father." That wasn't casually chosen wording, that was wording intended to incite Luke to eventually kill Vader.

Was Obi Wan wrong to train Luke witht he goal of defeating Vader, and to attempt to control the moment when Luke learned of his true parentage? The Death Star and Obi Wan's subsequent demise led to a loss of control, and Obi Wan along with Yoda had no idea that Vader knew of his son's true nature as well.

Sure. And they also happened because Qui-Gon took Anakin from Tatooine. But each of those events also happened because of particular later actions on Anakin's part.

Nice try, but the events in RoTS are all directly linked to each other. The fight on Mustafar could not have happened without Anakin's betrayal of the Jedi directly. Bringing up an event from decades prior is total bullshit, the two events are distantly related but so far off as to not be directly linked.

I didn't dodge the question. You dodged my answer.

You didn't answer, I asked what lasting effects on Vos did his exposure to the dark side have and you went on a tangent about Anakin Skywalker killing sand people.

I'll probably keep going back to it. It's a pretty big event, a pretty major piece of evil, a pretty clear embrace of the Dark Side and it had no visible negative consequences for Anakin.

The loss of Anakin's mother affected him greatly throughout his life, and revealed to us as neutral observers the flaw in his character that would eventually be exploited by Palpatine. Anakin was prone to rash actions and giving in to his anger. It also drove him closer to Amidala in a connection intentionally being fostered by Palpatine.

I wasn't talking quantity turning folks to the Dark Side, I was talking quality.

Yes because turning Jedi Masters isn't difficult at all.

The logic you fail to grasp is that getting in that falling to the Dark Side isn't what cost Anakin his limbs. There were numerous intervening events each of which could have turned out differently. I'll list a few possibilities by way of illustration.

1) Anakin falls to the Dark Side, Padme doesn't follow him to Mustafar. Anakin keeps his limbs.
2) Anakin falls, Padme follows, Obi-Wan doesn't stow away. Anakin keeps his limbs.
3) Anakin falls, Padme follows, Obi-Wan stows away, Anakin wins their fight. Anakin keeps his limbs.

Anakin losing his limbs was not the natural consequence of his falling to the Dark Side. It was the natural consequence of Obi-Wan slicing Anakin up when Anakin tried that jump maneuver against Obi-Wan when Obi-Wan had the high ground. Why is that so difficult for you grasp?

Because if Anakin doesnt turn to the dark side he doesn't duel Obi Wan on Mustafar, the two events are directly related. How you can be such a moron is beyond me. Just because Anakin could have won the duel doesn't change the fact that he lost a fight that he brought on himself through greed, paranoia, and fear.

Well if you're on the jury for a Rebel who is charged criminally for attacking a military target you can vote to acquit. I would vote to acquit too. Nevertheless I doubt that Imperial law recognizes the Rebellion's right to declare war and attack military targets.

It was a war and was regarded as such. Tarkin himself even uses the term "Military Target" when interrogating Leia. The Rebels also had a political body and held territory on a certain scale. So if it wasn't a war with two sides opposing each other, then what was it I do ask? If the Death Star wasn't a legitimate military target then what pray tell was?

Immediate effects on the mind I might give you, but I'm not sure what immediate effects on the body it has. The most dramatic physical effects we saw were on Palpatine, and we don't have any clear idea how long he had been a Dark Sider before he started looking like he did at the end of RotS.

Yellow eyes, skin discoloration or loss of coloration, and burst blood vessels (Courtship of Princess Leia) are the first, but less dramatic and debilitating effects. The effects on sanity could possibly indicate immediate physcial effects on the brain and/or nervous system.

You just plain haven't convinced me that falling to the Dark Side magically caused Anakin's limbs to fall off.

Nor was I ever trying to, don't be stupid.

Darth Maul didn't seem to manifest any tangible effects on his body from his being a Dark Sider. And Dooku was explicitly a fallen Jedi, and I didn't see any tangible effects on his body. I just don't see the evidence on screen to back the claim that falling to the Dark Side has tangible effects on the body.

Maul had the obvious yellow eyes and had his body covered by tattoos, he was also filled with rage. I acknowledge Dooku had no obvious physical effects but he was also a Master with many years of experience and a lot more control over his anger and rage than either Maul or Vader. However, the effects of the Dark Side have manifested in others, so while Dooku is not an example of this he does not need to be.

I would also point out Luke's apprentice Dolph, who took the alias Kueller, ended up a shell of a person because of the Dark Side and that his lack of experience could indicate that the most obvious signs of dark side corruption can only be controlled by a more experienced force user. So it is possible, although I cannot prove it, that Dooku was able to mask or hold back the physical corruption.

Right. And wanting Luke to join him on the Dark Side is not good. Trying to corrupt your child to the cause of evil is evil. Trying to get Luke to join him in the Dark Side is a sign that Vader is acting as an agent of the Dark Side.

Correct that turning Luke to the Dark side is not good, but the intention is worth noting. He wanted to rule as "Father and Son" after all, not "Master and Apprentice." Vader obviously wanted Luke by his side, he obviously felt a connection to his son and even though he tried to recruit Luke that didn't make him incapable of caring for Luke either. It's that love for his son, but twisted at first. Vader had to be broken himself and then have his conscience pushed to the absolute brink by seeing his son being tortured by Palpatine in order for that love of his son to win out over his ambition. Up until that decision, he was still trying to have it both ways. It's incredibly fucked up, but this is a Sith Lord we are talking about.

You know, I'll give you that. Once he knew who Luke was, Vader didn't make any serious attempts to kill him. But, like I said, almost to the end he was sincerely trying to turn Luke to the Dark Side, which is still an evil act.

See above, I won't deny that at all and it's made even more evil by the remark made when Vader realized the existence of his daughter as well, an obvious attempt to draw out Luke's anger and prompt him down the dark path.

I'm satisfied that telling Luke that Vader "betrayed and murdered" Luke's father is enough to cast doubt on anything they say to Luke on the topic of Anakin or his fall.

I'd ask you again, but you're dodging the question again because the answer doesn't support your side. Obi Wan and Yoda didn't lie about anything else aside from the Anakin=Vader connection, and while Obi Wan was eventually forced to admit the truth, he wasn't lying about anything else and the fact is true that "Darth Vader" took Anakin Skywalker's place. Obi Wan says "so what I told you was true, in a sense" and Luke doesn't really argue with that point too much.

I will give them credit that they actually believed that Vader couldn't be redeemed and weren't just saying that so in the hopes that Luke would kill his own father in spite of the possibility of Anakin's redemption. But their believing it doesn't make it so. In the Episode II, Yoda himself says "The Dark Side clouds everything. Impossible to see, the future is." If anything the Dark Side is even stronger by the time of the original trilogy. Maybe the Dark Side was still preventing Yoda from foreseeing the possibility of Anakin's redemption.

I don't believe that redemption is something that could have been foreseen even by Yoda, or that Jedi foresight has ever been demonstrated at a level as high as you give it credit for even without the shroud. I think that Luke's connection to his father is the only thing that allowed him to see that there was still a shred of "Anakin" left inside of Vader.

[lstyer]

There were no consequences for Vos with the Jedi Council

That complaint, I can see.

I'm pretty sure Obi Wan's goal wasn't because he wanted to see a kid kill his own father, Vader being a tryant responsible for opppression on a galactic scale.

No, he didn't want "a kid" to kill his own father. He wanted Luke, specifically to kill Vader. For a very good reason, I'll grant you, but that was pretty clearly his goal and he pretty clearly lied in furtherance of that goal.

Was Obi Wan wrong to train Luke witht he goal of defeating Vader, and to attempt to control the moment when Luke learned of his true parentage?

Nope. It was a justifiable lie, but it was a lie, and when someone is shown to be a liar, I take everything he says on the topic of his lie with a grain of salt.

Obi Wan along with Yoda had no idea that Vader knew of his son's true nature as well.

Then Obi-Wan and Yoda are kinda dumb what with Luke running around using Anakin's surname and having been raised on Tatooine.

Nice try, but the events in RoTS are all directly linked to each other. The fight on Mustafar could not have happened without Anakin's betrayal of the Jedi directly.

Nice try, but the events in RotS are all directly linked to Anakin's leaving Tatooine. The fight on Mustafar could not have happened without Anakin's leaving Tatooine directly.

Bringing up an event from decades prior is total bullshit, the two events are distantly related but so far off as to not be directly linked.

No, they are directly linked, and without one, the other would never have happened. What you're ignoring are the numerous intervening causes between the two causally linked events, each of which could have broken the chain of causation. Much like Obi-Wan choosing not to hitch a ride to Mustafar would have broken the chain of causation between Anakin's betrayal of the Jedi and Anakin's limbs falling off his body.

You didn't answer, I asked what lasting effects on Vos did his exposure to the dark side have and you went on a tangent about Anakin Skywalker killing sand people.

I thought it was clear that I agreed there were no lasting effects on Vos. I'm with you there. The point of the tangent about the Sandpeople is that exposure to the Dark Side does not necessarily carry with it lasting consequences.

Because if Anakin doesnt turn to the dark side he doesn't duel Obi Wan on Mustafar, the two events are directly related.

Of course you're correct that if Anakin didn't turn to the Dark Side he wouldn't have dueled Obi-Wan. I'm not arguing that Anakin's turning isn't a cause of his loss of limb, I'm arguing that Anakin's turning wasn't the cause and that a number of intervening events could have turned out differently and left us with Dark Side Anakin who still has three of his own limbs.

How you can be such a moron is beyond me.

From what I can tell, that's not all that's beyond you. The concept of intervening causes seems to be on that list, too.

So if it wasn't a war with two sides opposing each other, then what was it I do ask?

It was a revolution. And revolutions are almost always illegal, at least they are unless and until the revolutionaries win. "Criminal" is a legal term and the winning side determines what is and isn't criminal. The Rebels won, and at that point Luke ceased to be a criminal. But any rebels who had been captured by the Empire during the war would have been legally treated as criminals.

If the Death Star wasn't a legitimate military target then what pray tell was?

Morally speaking it was a legitimate military target. Legally speaking it was a government facility attacked by a bunch of criminals.

Nor was I ever trying to, don't be stupid.

You seem to be taking the position that once Anakin turned to the Dark Side it was inevitable that his limbs would be cut off in a duel with Obi-Wan next to a lava flow. You seem to be taking the position that none of the intervening events could possibly have turned out differently.

Maul had the obvious yellow eyes and had his body covered by tattoos, he was also filled with rage.

Wait, falling to the Dark Side gave Maul his tatoos?

Up until that decision, he was still trying to have it both ways. It's incredibly fucked up, but this is a Sith Lord we are talking about.

That's exactly my point. Right up until the final decision, Vader was actively serving the Dark Side.

I'd ask you again, but you're dodging the question again because the answer doesn't support your side.

I'm not dodging the question; I agreed with you that the only lies that I remember Obi-Wan telling were lies about Anakin. And, yeah, that answer does support my position because telling Luke that Vader "betrayed and murdered" Anakin was a huge lie.

Obi Wan says "so what I told you was true, in a sense"

Yeah, and that was a blatant cop out. That said, if you're buying Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" line, he also said that "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Maybe one of the truths that Obi-Wan and Yoda clung to, which depended greatly on their "own point of view" was that Anakin couldn't be redeemed. I mean, they were clearly wrong, but is it possible that their acute sense of betrayal ("You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you.") was a component of the point of view that blinded them to the possibility of redemption?

[Darth Fanboy]

No, he didn't want "a kid" to kill his own father. He wanted Luke, specifically to kill Vader. For a very good reason, I'll grant you, but that was pretty clearly his goal and he pretty clearly lied in furtherance of that goal.

Nope. It was a justifiable lie, but it was a lie, and when someone is shown to be a liar, I take everything he says on the topic of his lie with a grain of salt.

Given these responses, how can you still doubt Obi Wan and Yoda's credibility. One incident with what you admit is good reason should not harm their credibility. Lying is not always a bad thing.

Then Obi-Wan and Yoda are kinda dumb what with Luke running around using Anakin's surname and having been raised on Tatooine.

No argument there at all, in-universe it's completely foolish.

Nice try, but the events in RotS are all directly linked to Anakin's leaving Tatooine. The fight on Mustafar could not have happened without Anakin's leaving Tatooine directly.

No, they are directly linked, and without one, the other would never have happened....(snipping the rest)

Stop being fucking stupid.

The events on Coruscant and the events on Mustafar are directly related, they happened concurrently. You cannot give equal credit to Anakin's leaving Tatooine because so many other things have happened in the interim the two things are no longer so closely related. By your logic, we might as well place equal blame on the formation of the galaxy, and Darth Bane founding the Sith Order.

Suppose you are driving your car, and another driver rear ends you while talking on their cell phone. Suppose that driver was on their way to the grocery store to buy milk. Would you seriously say that the grocery store trip had just as much cause in the accident as talking on the phone while driving?

I thought it was clear that I agreed there were no lasting effects on Vos. I'm with you there. The point of the tangent about the Sandpeople is that exposure to the Dark Side does not necessarily carry with it lasting consequences.

And you used Anakin Skywalker as your example. That would be like using the Titanic as an example of "not everyone dies when a cruise ship sinks."

Unless I am mistaken, there is no other Jedi who went as far to the Dark Side as Quinlan Vos did without any lasting consequences, and very few who used it without falling to some degree. The only example I can think of that might support your side would be Juhani in KOTOR but I don't believe she had actually done anything wrong up until that point save for believing that she had killed her master in a duel which was actually a Jedi Trial, and her exposure was quite limited.

It was a revolution. And revolutions are almost always illegal, at least they are unless and until the revolutionaries win. "Criminal" is a legal term and the winning side determines what is and isn't criminal. The Rebels won, and at that point Luke ceased to be a criminal. But any rebels who had been captured by the Empire during the war would have been legally treated as criminals.

Morally speaking it was a legitimate military target. Legally speaking it was a government facility attacked by a bunch of criminals.

In other words you admit you're just nitpicking.

You seem to be taking the position that once Anakin turned to the Dark Side it was inevitable that his limbs would be cut off in a duel with Obi-Wan next to a lava flow. You seem to be taking the position that none of the intervening events could possibly have turned out differently.

They could have, but they didn't. Once Anakin turned to the dark side his confrontation with Obi Wan was inevitable, and thus whatever resulted from that confrontation would be directly tied to his fall as well, and the result was Anakin's near death and horrible disfigurement.

Wait, falling to the Dark Side gave Maul his tatoos?

I apologize I think a line or two of text was missing from there. Skin discoloration and disfigurement is another dark side effect and Maul's tattoo's would have concealed that.

That's exactly my point. Right up until the final decision, Vader was actively serving the Dark Side.

But still influenced by the care he had for his son, Luke was right in that there was still a noble piece of Anakin SKywalker left not extinguished by the Dark Side.

I'm not dodging the question; I agreed with you that the only lies that I remember Obi-Wan telling were lies about Anakin. And, yeah, that answer does support my position because telling Luke that Vader "betrayed and murdered" Anakin was a huge lie.

That you admit was told for a good reason.

Yeah, and that was a blatant cop out. That said, if you're buying Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" line, he also said that "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Maybe one of the truths that Obi-Wan and Yoda clung to, which depended greatly on their "own point of view" was that Anakin couldn't be redeemed. I mean, they were clearly wrong, but is it possible that their acute sense of betrayal ("You were my brother, Anakin. I loved you.") was a component of the point of view that blinded them to the possibility of redemption?

It was a total cop out, but one that allowed Obi Wan to reveal some truth without giving away that one crucial bit of information. Rather than being too inquisitive about his own father's fate or rushing into a hasty confrontation Luke became focused on becoming a Jedi, which was far more important. I d

I think Obi Wan felt that possibility of redemption for Anakin existed until Anakin tried to jump over him with disastrous results on Mustafar. At that point, even with Obi Wan at a clear advantage Anakin had been so corrupted by anger and arrogance that he made a big mistake. I think at that point, Obi Wan had given up on him. So I would say it wasn't that they were blinded to the idea, but made an informed opinion based on Anakin getting his limbs chopped off in a dark side fueled rage rather than admitting defeat.