OK, I know that Saxton didn't authorize this in HIS ITW

[Rogue 9]

So Rogue is basing his entire argument upon a piece of conjecture? Well, if conjecture about the motives of the United States becomes admissible evidence ...

Except we don't need conjecture in that case, as the United States, unlike the Empire in the Galactic Civil War, won in WW2 and brought about it's goals, so we can examine them ourselves. Further, the United States is irrelevant to the Empire in the first place.

Still looking for excuses to avoid the tough questions, eh Rogue?

When making a decision, one does not have the luxury of precognition. Ergo, one cannot say "well, we know it worked so I don't have to answer your question" as a way of evading a question about the ethics of a decision. Get it?

Fine. I concede that the conjecture was just that, though the manner in which Palpatine used Byss was still monstrously reprehensible. I now point to the Tarkin Doctrine: Rule through fear. Make the average citizens so afraid that they won't dare oppose you, so you can have your way with the populace. The institution of an autocratic Empire based on rule through terror also constitutes very shitty ends. The Death Star was designed to enforce absolute rulership through the fear of obliteration, again, an objectively evil goal.

[Darth Wong]

Fine. I concede that the conjecture was just that, though the manner in which Palpatine used Byss was still monstrously reprehensible. I now point to the Tarkin Doctrine: Rule through fear. Make the average citizens so afraid that they won't dare oppose you, so you can have your way with the populace. The institution of an autocratic Empire based on rule through terror also constitutes very shitty ends. The Death Star was designed to enforce absolute rulership through the fear of obliteration, again, an objectively evil goal.

More evasions of the point with useless flowery rhetorical chicanery. Let me ask you again: do you believe that human life is more valuable than a preferred system of government, and do you believe that the end justifies the means?

[Stofsk]

The Death Star was designed to enforce absolute rulership through the fear of obliteration, again, an objectively evil goal.

And how the hell is the atom bomb, the concepts of nuclear war and MAD, and the stated deterrence of "You bomb us and we'll bomb your populations centres" NOT a 'rule by fear'? How was bombing Hiroshima NOT the same as forcing the Japanese to accept foreign rulership, through fear of obliteration?

[Rogue 9]

Let me ask you again: do you believe that human life is more valuable than a preferred system of government, and do you believe that the end justifies the means?

Yes and yes, with qualifications that don't apply here, so I won't waste time giving them. Neither help Palpatine, whose means were ordering the murder of billions if not trillions and whose ends were his own personal benefit. As the answers don't help him at all, I fail to see the relevance of the questions to the argument.

And how the hell is the atom bomb, the concepts of nuclear war and MAD, and the stated deterrence of "You bomb us and we'll bomb your populations centres" NOT a 'rule by fear'? How was bombing Hiroshima NOT the same as forcing the Japanese to accept foreign rulership, through fear of obliteration?

Because the atom bomb was not used to impose United States governance upon the world. It's not rule by fear because we weren't their rulers.

[Darth Wong]

Let me ask you again: do you believe that human life is more valuable than a preferred system of government, and do you believe that the end justifies the means?

Yes and yes, with qualifications that don't apply here, so I won't waste time giving them. Neither help Palpatine, whose means were ordering the murder of billions if not trillions and whose ends were his own personal benefit.

The motivations of the agent are not in question here. You seem to think that we are making this argument:

Palpatine was personally a moral man of high character

When in reality, we are making this argument:

The Empire's actions in Star Wars were not necessarily evil, at least not if you accept the "mathematics of death" required to rationalize something like Hiroshima

Please try to answer the actual point, not your distorted strawman version thereof.

[Rogue 9]

we are making this argument:

The Empire's actions in Star Wars were not necessarily evil, at least not if you accept the "mathematics of death" required to rationalize something like Hiroshima

Please try to answer the actual point, not your distorted strawman version thereof.

The Empire's goal was not to minimize casualties through a mathematics of death rationalization. It was to bring the galaxy under it's rule, casualties be damned. If minimization of casualties was the goal, the Clone Wars would never have happened and Palpatine would never have muscled his way into the office of the Supreme Chancellor and never have pushed for emergency powers through artificially creating an adversary to make war on the Republic. It is quite clear that Palpatine, who as Emperor is the Imperial government personified, never cared about casualties, and since as absolute ruler, he is his nation's government his personal immorality makes his government similarly immoral. When speaking of absolute rulers, you cannot separate their personal command decisions from the quality of their government, since one not only defines the other, it is the other.

[Stravo]

The Empire's goal was not to minimize casualties through a mathematics of death rationalization. It was to bring the galaxy under it's rule, casualties be damned. If minimization of casualties was the goal, the Clone Wars would never have happened and Palpatine would never have muscled his way into the office of the Supreme Chancellor and never have pushed for emergency powers through artificially creating an adversary to make war on the Republic. It is quite clear that Palpatine, who as Emperor is the Imperial government personified, never cared about casualties.

Now that's not quite true now is it? Palpatine created a disposable army and the Jedi to bear the brunt of the Republic's casulaties. The Separatists had droids to bear the brunt of their casulaties. Sounds to me like it was a war carefully crafted to make sure the population he would rule under would not be devastated or even badly impacted.

Sounds to me like he eliminated his enemies, weakened the Jedi Knights and brought his clone troopers to the fore front as the main arm of the galaxy's army because they would do most of the fighting and dying without spilling too much blood.

[Rogue 9]

That's still not a minimum of casualties. A minimum of casualties is sitting down and not making a power play in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

Your perception of the motivations of the individuals carrying out these actions are not only a useless rhetorical sideshow since they cannot be proven or disproven, but they are also irrelevant to the question of whether the actions themselves are moral. Your entire conduct during this debate has been to desperately cling to any excuse you can use to avoid facing the tough questions posed by your hypocritical support of the "mathematics of death" to justify Hiroshima but not Alderaan.

[Rogue 9]

Your perception of the motivations of the individuals carrying out these actions are not only a useless rhetorical sideshow since they cannot be proven or disproven, but they are also irrelevant to the question of whether the actions themselves are moral.

Pray tell, what benevolent motivation could compel someone to start a massive war against his own government in order to seize power and then compel him to impose an unnecessary iron grip on his new subjects/former citizens? Palpatine was an absolute monarch. It is impossible to separate the motivations of the Empire that he alone ruled with his own motivations, and our motivations in large part define our actions.

Your entire conduct during this debate has been to desperately cling to any excuse you can use to avoid facing the tough questions posed by your hypocritical support of the "mathematics of death" to justify Hiroshima but not Alderaan.

Show me that Alderaan was necessary to prevent greater loss of life elsewhere as Hiroshima was and that it was perpetrated as part of a war forced upon the Empire by the Alderaanians and you have a point on the mathematics of death issue. As it stands, the Empire started the Galactic Civil War and the destruction of Alderaan deterred nothing, and was not necessary to do so even had Yavin been destroyed and the Death Star survived. If the purpose was to destroy the Rebellion, destroying Yavin would do the job far better; Alderaan was superfluous to that goal. Destroying Alderaan didn't gain the location of the Rebel base, and it didn't cripple the Rebellion through scaring off members. It apparently destroyed a Rebel munitions dump, but it was massive overkill for that; analogous to the U.S. destroying insurgent munitions dumps by leveling Fallujah, which I'm sure you'd disapprove of, to put it lightly.

[The Original Nex]

Your entire conduct during this debate has been to desperately cling to any excuse you can use to avoid facing the tough questions posed by your hypocritical support of the "mathematics of death" to justify Hiroshima but not Alderaan.

As it stands, the Empire started the Galactic Civil War and the destruction of Alderaan deterred nothing, and was not necessary to do so even had Yavin been destroyed and the Death Star survived. If the purpose was to destroy the Rebellion, destroying Yavin would do the job far better; Alderaan was superfluous to that goal. Destroying Alderaan didn't gain the location of the Rebel base, and it didn't cripple the Rebellion through scaring off members. It apparently destroyed a Rebel munitions dump, but it was massive overkill for that; analogous to the U.S. destroying insurgent munitions dumps by leveling Fallujah, which I'm sure you'd disapprove of, to put it lightly.

Actually the Alliance started the Galactic Civil War by delaring war on the Empire, not the other way around. Alderaan was a leading figurehead in the rebellion's leadership. The rebels attacked many Imperial military depots. How is that unlike the Japanese attacking Pearl Habor? The Empire retaliated in the like with many offensives against the Rebels. Then they destroyed Alderaan (as I said, a major player in the Rebellion), how is that unlike the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Rogue 9]

Your entire conduct during this debate has been to desperately cling to any excuse you can use to avoid facing the tough questions posed by your hypocritical support of the "mathematics of death" to justify Hiroshima but not Alderaan.

As it stands, the Empire started the Galactic Civil War and the destruction of Alderaan deterred nothing, and was not necessary to do so even had Yavin been destroyed and the Death Star survived. If the purpose was to destroy the Rebellion, destroying Yavin would do the job far better; Alderaan was superfluous to that goal. Destroying Alderaan didn't gain the location of the Rebel base, and it didn't cripple the Rebellion through scaring off members. It apparently destroyed a Rebel munitions dump, but it was massive overkill for that; analogous to the U.S. destroying insurgent munitions dumps by leveling Fallujah, which I'm sure you'd disapprove of, to put it lightly.

Actually the Alliance started the Galactic Civil War by delaring war on the Empire, not the other way around. Alderaan was a leading figurehead in the rebellion's leadership. The rebels attacked many Imperial military depots. How is that unlike the Japanese attacking Pearl Habor? The Empire retaliated in the like with many offensives against the Rebels. Then they destroyed Alderaan (as I said, a major player in the Rebellion), how is that unlike the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Episode III spoiler: [size=0]I really wish this hadn't been spilled to me, but what's done is done. Apparently the Separatists, a group of Palpatine's creation, go on to become the Rebellion, or so I've been told. If true, the Rebellion is of Palpatine's own direct making. War started by Palpatine: Check.[/size] Even without that, it's the Alliance to Restore the Republic. The Empire made the first move through overthrowing the Republic.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Where did Palpatine state that he planned to drain the life force out of every person in the galaxy?

It's a major premise of Dark Empire, as I understand. It's been stated at intervals throughout this thread and others.

Then you can provide the quote, correct?

The subject of the Emperor Palpatine's ultimate goals is described much more adeptly in Part III of the essay found here, by Julius Sykes; I will present the original source materials and attempt a synopsis of my own, however.

Whatever they [the Dark Side Adepts] do, they enact the Emperor's will and policies with his total trust and confidence because their link to him through the Force allows him to always observe them. Before the Emperor's defeat, many had been gathered into the Imperial Ruling Council. It had been planned that eventually these adepts would replace the system of Moffs, Grand Moffs and governors, instituting a Dark Side Theocracy [sic].

With his adepts securely in power, they were to participate in experiments on the 'Science of Darkness,' feeding on and draining the life essence of the citizenry."

-- The Dark Empire Sourcebook by Michael Allen Horne, Chapter Four: The Force (West End Games, 1993.) (underlined emphasis mine)

Of course, this world was not to be only for Palpatine's use. Quite the contrary: enormous leisure and habitation complexes were included in the original designs. Incredulous as the designers were, his orders were obeyed. Soon, enormous cities and resorts spread across the planet. Little could they suspect the true purpose behind this largess — Palpatine planned for millions to permanently reside here, where he and his minions could use their Dark Side skills to feed off their life energy.

-- The Dark Empire Sourcebook by Michael Allen Horne, Chapter Five: Planets (West End Games, 1993.) (underlined emphasis mine)

WELCOME TO BYSS, A DARK SIDE WORLD

...

It is on Byss that the Emperor is establishing his model for the Galaxy-wide society of the far future, when the Dark Side of the Force will rule all without the need for weapons.

-- Star Wars: Dark Empire Trade Paperback by Tom Vietch (Dark Horse Comics, 1995.) (underlined emphasis mine)

BYSS IS A PLACE OF OMINOUS PEACE AND HARMONY

...

Once there [Byss], wrapped in the power of the Dark Side, the immigrants become completely submissive, their life energy forever enslaved to the mind that would devour a galaxy.

...

Using their "science of darkness," they [the Dark Side Adepts] learned to feed on the life-energy of others, accumulating Force energy in their own bodies. And they learned to redirect this accumulated power in many ways - either as a weapon or in the manipulation of molecular structures.

-- Star Wars: Dark Empire Trade Paperback by Tom Vietch (Dark Horse Comics, 1995.) (underlined emphasis mine)

So The Dark Empire Sourcebook and Star Wars: Dark Empire agree that the Emperor Palpatine and his dark side adepts sought to drain the ethereal life from the inhabitants of Byss. Byss itself, being shrouded in the dark side and ruled by Palpatine's adepts, is a model for the galaxy as a whole in the future.

[Lord of the Farce]

I now point to the Tarkin Doctrine: Rule through fear. Make the average citizens so afraid that they won't dare oppose you, so you can have your way with the populace. The institution of an autocratic Empire based on rule through terror also constitutes very shitty ends. The Death Star was designed to enforce absolute rulership through the fear of obliteration, again, an objectively evil goal.

One of the main points of the Tarkin Doctrine: Rule through the fear of force rather than through force itself.

As to the Dark Empire's "'Science of Darkness,' feeding on and draining the life essence of the citizenry":

Easy for willing, worshipful subjects. Difficult for ambivalent or apathetic individuals. Heroic for enemies. Add +10 to the difficulty if individuals are imbued with the Light Side of the Force.

All living things are a part of and contribute to the Force; even those with no awareness of the Force are affected by and are a part of it. Many beings go through their daily lives wasting much of their life energy. This power draws that life energy from beings, allowing a Jedi to use that energy to further his or her own ends.

The amount of energy the Jedi draws depends on the number of individuals affected by the power and how long they have been drained.

For individuals who have been drained for less then one week or longer than one month:

1-5—One Force Point per week
6-50—One Force Point per five days
51-1,000—One Force Point per three days
1,001-50,000—One Force Point per two days
50,001-1 million—One Force Point per day
1 million to 10 million—One Force Point per 12 hours


For individuals who have been drained longer than one week and less than one month:

1-5—One Force Point per five days and +1D to all Force skills
6-50—One Force Point per three days and +2D to all Force skills
51-1,000—One Force Point per two days and +3D to all Force skills
1,001-50,000—One Force Point per day and +3D+2 to all Force skills
50,001-1 million—One Force Point per 12 hours and +4D to all Force skills
1 million to 10 million—One Force Point per 6 hours and +4D+2 to all Force skills

As KS pointed out, the negative effects on the victims are so small that they never even bothered to model it in the Dark Empire sourcebook.

[Graeme Dice]

Funny: I was thinking the same thing about you, asshole.

I'm not the one excusing the genocide of billions by comparing it to the death of 150,000 people. That would be you doing the rationalizing away of atrocities.

The outcome is what matters; whether that outcome is through incompetence, negligence, apathy, or malice is irrelevant to the dead and suffering.

How was that sentence supposed to end?

At last somebody who provides evidence.

The lack of a strong central government led directly to all of the problems I mentioned, and it is anarchistic. Devolving government down to a local level is big-picture anarchy.

Which is, of course, superior to totalitarian rule by an unwanted overlord.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[snip]

You're an idiot. They were intentionally not told where they were - hard to be willing when you've been shipped off by COMPNOR and do not even know you are in the New Order. Of course they selected the willing; its easier to ship them off and not have anyone question. Fact of the matter remains that it was a model for the greater galaxy for Palpatine to sit and absorb the general populace ignorantly into his Will.

And quite frankly, to say the absence of RPG modeling means that no drawbacks exist is an argument from ignorance. Based on this gem, there was no space combat in the first edition.

[Lord of the Farce]

You're an idiot. They were intentionally not told where they were - hard to be willing when you've been shipped off by COMPNOR and do not even know you are in the New Order. Of course they selected the willing; its easier to ship them off and not have anyone question. Fact of the matter remains that it was a model for the greater galaxy for Palpatine to sit and absorb the general populace ignorantly into his Will.

Who's the idiot? That part was talking about how hard it was to actually USE the power on someone, not about how much easier it was abducting the willing for the purpose.

And quite frankly, to say the absence of RPG modeling means that no drawbacks exist is an argument from ignorance. Based on this gem, there was no space combat in the first edition.

Did you even bother to read the quotes I provided?

Many beings go through their daily lives wasting much of their life energy. This power draws that life energy from beings, allowing a Jedi to use that energy to further his or her own ends.

EDIT: In other words, this power is roughly equivalent to witch doctors magically taking out a third, ethereal kidney which you can't use anyway out of you. An ethereal kidney which also happen to be regenerating.

[Rogue 9]

And just what use would a Sith Lord put that power to, do you think? He's not gathering power just for shits and giggles.

[Lord of the Farce]

And just what use would a Sith Lord put that power to, do you think? He's not gathering power just for shits and giggles.

Rushing to match that 365-trillion-in-5-years tally, what else?

[nightmare]

That's still not a minimum of casualties. A minimum of casualties is sitting down and not making a power play in the first place.

Ahem. "Rule through fear of force rather than force itself."

That doesn't sound like casualties be damned to me. And the end justifies the means? As a principle, never.

[Kurgan]

Incidentally, does the "evil" or "non evil" of the Allied Powers during WW2 or the US during the Cold War or the "War on Terror" really have any bearing on the evilness or "non evilness" of the Empire's actions?

I don't see that it does, except as Wong put it to try to implicate the arguers as 'hypocritical in their world view.'

Once you find someone who says that yes, real life examples of such actions are atrocities and morally reprehensible then you have admitted that the Empire was wrong too, if that's your sole argument. It's more akin to attacking the person, rather than addressing the actual argument. While one could argue that the "situations are the same" so therefore it applies, one could also argue that the situations are in fact, NOT the same, even if one were to excuse the actions of the Allies or the US, but not the Empire (or vice versa).

I can see where some of this is going...

Is it morally right for a government to stay in power through any means necessary?

Is it also morally right for a populance to REMOVE an abusive government from power by any means necessary?

To that I'd argue, that when the price of non-resistance is going to be death and suffering anyway, and when the government has given you no options for non-violent solutions, it gives a big argument in favor of "liberty or death."

Also, I could argue that the tactics used by the Rebels showed marvelous restraint compared to those used by the so-called "legitimate government" of the Empire (which was achieved through subterfuge and treason by power-hungry madmen anyway). Bring back the whole hypocrisy thing, isn't it a bit hypocritical to call the Rebels evil for stuff they did when the alternative was the much greater threat of the Empire? The same logic used to attack the Rebels is being used to exonerate the Empire, and that's just goofy.


The argument that keeps popping up here is that the Rebels should have known that their government was going to be "too weak" to stop an alien invasion in a couple of decades after the Empire fell, so they should have just bent over for the Empire. All well and good to say that, but not everyone can see the Future, especially when you have Dark Force users clouding your minds. Did the Empire know about the Vong invasion? The Emperor couldn't even see that the Rebels would beat him and his arrogant plan to wipe them out and his own death. Even his crappy "return" was defeated. If he was so all-knowing, you'd think he'd have had better planning. Sure, I suppose his super weapons could have defeated the Vong a bit easier, but there still would have been massive deaths and possible genocide (would the Empire really spare them when the war was "over"?). But, I don't know if that day would ever have come. Given the Empire's abuses of their own people, a rebellion was pretty much inevitable. This destabilizing (instigated by the Empire's oppression, incidentally) was the "opening" that the Dominion, oops, I mean Species 8472, whoops, sorry, I mean the Vong, needed to attack.

Personally I think the whole Vong thing was BS (for a myriad of reasons), but who am I to argue with the LucasFilm canon policy?

The difference is that the Clone Wars (and the crises leading up to them) were planned and executed by Palpatine himself, as was the Jedi Purge. Tarkin and his cronies weren't rogues who acted alone. Rather they had the sanction of the Emperor himself to commit their atrocities. The Galactic Civil War was something he caused, rather than planned, but surely he (the Emperor) could have forseen the consequences of his (Tarkin's) actions and the effect it would have on his subjects? Finally, there's the fact that the Imperial Warlords tried to hold onto power for another few decades, and even Palpatine's spirit came back to possess a clone body and try to kill a few more people just for old time's sake.

[Kurgan]

Wait a minute, is it seriously being suggested that the Clone War was a "gentleman's war" that was fought only between "disposable" soldiers, therefore it doesn't really compare to other types of wars?

Even if we take the (morally bankrupt) opinion that Clones are morally acceptable as disposable (even if treated that way in law, like slaves), that still is pretty hard to believe.

But I suppose it could be possible. It's an interesting theory. Maybe there is even some "honorable" rule like the Great Convention/Kanly of Dune in the SW universe that would monitor something like this? I wonder if Episode III and the canon materials for the prequels supports this idea? (I have a feeling it does not, though)


If we somehow could prove that, this lowers the body count Palpatine is responsible for with the war he waged on his own state to secure power, since he's only murdering the Jedi order and the few sentients that die in the various battles alongside the Droids & Clones (like the Geonosians, those Techno Union aliens, etc).

[Rogue 9]

That's still not a minimum of casualties. A minimum of casualties is sitting down and not making a power play in the first place.

Ahem. "Rule through fear of force rather than force itself."

That doesn't sound like casualties be damned to me. And the end justifies the means? As a principle, never.

You didn't comprehend what I said at all, did you? An absolute minimum casualty count would involve not creating the New Order in the first place, but rather sit down, shut up, and be a Senator like he's supposed to do.

[Batman]

You didn't comprehend what I said at all, did you? An absolute minimum casualty count would involve not creating the New Order in the first place, but rather sit down, shut up, and be a Senator like he's supposed to do.

Ah, but that would means the Old Republic stays weak, corrupted and fractured, resulting once more in the casualties of the Vong invasion the Rebellion was somehow supposed to know about .

[Rogue 9]

You didn't comprehend what I said at all, did you? An absolute minimum casualty count would involve not creating the New Order in the first place, but rather sit down, shut up, and be a Senator like he's supposed to do.

Ah, but that would means the Old Republic stays weak, corrupted and fractured, resulting once more in the casualties of the Vong invasion the Rebellion was somehow supposed to know about .

As Kazuaki was telling me before bailing out, you can't use what we know resulted from an action because those making the decisions didn't have the luxury of knowing. Of course, he was using that in reference to Hiroshima, but it applies to the Alliance just as well.