Do any players consider the Empire to be the good guys? Spoilers welcome.

[SithKoriandr]

Yes, but the criminal element didn't have their own mini-empires that the British refused to do anything about (also, they were around for a lot less than a thousand years).

 

And the Hutt Empire is more vast than other criminal empires. Hutt's criminal empire is a real empire, with enough resources that it can be made to do so much for one side.

[nimmerstil]

That depends on whether there's a better option on offer. We can't always assume that there's a perfect solution. When looking at these dictatorships we can point to states that function better and more ethically. It's not so clear that there is a better alternative to the Jedi teaching method.

 

Yeah, there is actually, leaving them with their parents and train them later. Smaller chance on psychopathology means fewer Jedi dramatically falling and starting wars

 

In medicine, the treatment for a serious illness or injury can often involve dangers or side effects of its own.

 

There is no illness to treat, nothing is effectively treated by traumatizing children and denying secure attachments.

Edited October 20, 2015 by nimmerstil

[nimmerstil]

Never seen a young padawan in the lack of emotion area of things. Even Jedi show emotion.

They are restricted in not being allowed to marry, or form other attachments. Officially. That is a pretty big restriction.

 

Though I'm not sure where you get the idea of them being traumatized, other than you think they're traumatized.

Children are traumatized when you separate them from their parents.

 

Not to be forgotten, they're allowed to leave to the order.

Right, we're talking 5, 6 year old children, they are not capable of leaving the order.

 

The difference is, most consider being a Jedi an honor

These children are just as traumatized, the rest of the world considering it an honor to become Jedi does not change that.

 

The Sith do the same though, not saying they are better. Might be getting a bit off-topic, although the Sith and Jedi exist in contrast to each other.

 

As for regular reproduction, their doctrine is almost never followed in that area. Everytime you turn around, just as many jedi with kids as there are jedi spouting that line

Proving the doctrine is an unnecessary and ineffective 'cure' for a non-existent 'illness'

Edited October 20, 2015 by nimmerstil

[Joachimthbear]

Yeah, there is actually, leaving them with their parents and train them later. Smaller chance on psychopathology means fewer Jedi dramatically falling and starting wars.

The Jedi would say that the longer they wait, the more can go wrong. Take an extreme case like Anakin Skywalker: before the Jedi found him he'd been living as a slave for his entire life on a dangerous, crime-filled frontier world. Such a violent background is bound to leave a mark on a person, something that could lead to them falling to the Dark Side years later. The longer you leave someone in that kind of environment, the worse things will get.

 

Now that is, as I say, an extreme case; but even for people with "normal" lives, things still happen. Do you wait until your prospective Jedi are old enough to fall in love, then wrench them away from that relationship as well? Do you wait until they're fully adults, their minds much less open to learning and changes in their view of the world? Do you assume that they won't have an accident, or lose someone close to them, and be traumatised anyway?

 

There is no illness to treat, nothing is effectively treated by traumatizing children and denying secure attachments.

My analogy wasn't exact. I was just pointing out that the best of two bad things can still be considered good, if there is no better alternative. The same argument has been used further back in the the thread with Churchill's comment about democracy: it has all kinds of problems, but just try and find something that consistently works better.

 

Proving the doctrine is an unnecessary and ineffective 'cure' for a non-existent 'illness'

I think much of this comes down to inconsistent portrayal. Some Star Wars media may show initiates and padawans being cloistered, cut off from the outside world and denied any attachments, but the comics about Zayne Carrick do not (at least one of Zayne's fellow padawans is still in contact with his family, as that is how Zayne met Shel). This kind of inconsistency leaves gaps that we have to fill in with our own ideas. You have your interpretation, and I respect that, but mine is different.

 

Based on what I've seen and read - and I stress that that isn't a huge amount - I suspect that what the Jedi really want to teach is not "never have attachments" but rather "never be unable to detach yourself". Hence, Obi-Wan sees Anakin as his brother and is greatly hurt by Anakin's betrayal, but he is able to leave that connection aside in order to fight him. When Anakin is beaten, Obi-Wan allows himself to feel his anger and grief about what's happening; if he'd given in to those emotions during the fight he would have been distracted, off-balance, and would either have lost the fight or fallen to the Dark Side. Based on this same idea, while the Jedi will always be wary of their members forming long-term relationships, they could be willing to trust a proven member in good standing (like Satele, or the Consular player character) to partake in such a relationship on the expectation that they would be able to put themselves beyond it, if and when that became necessary.

 

...yeah, we did kinda go off topic somewhere back there. Maybe we should start a separate Force Philosophy/Is the Jedi Order a psychopath factory? thread.

[nimmerstil]

The Jedi would say that the longer they wait, the more can go wrong. Take an extreme case like Anakin Skywalker: before the Jedi found him he'd been living as a slave for his entire life on a dangerous, crime-filled frontier world.

 

The Jedi should have left him on Tatooine, or should have taken his mother along (why they never did come back for her is something I will never understand) ... He was separated from, and left his mother behind. Two trauma's that were not handled properly by the Jedi. First is separation from his mother, the only secure person for Anakin, and big loss especially for someone deprived of just about everything, finally ending in the greed that marked his later actions. Secondly, guild, for leaving his mother behind in a bad situation while he got a much better deal, an issue that got much worse when his mother died and he was too late, failed to save her.

 

Now that is, as I say, an extreme case; but even for people with "normal" lives, things still happen. Do you wait until your prospective Jedi are old enough to fall in love, then wrench them away from that relationship as well?

You handle their issues, or rather help them hanle their own issues, you don't ignore them, which is basically what they did with Anakin. The Jedi failed Anakin. Not surprising as they themselves lack true empathy and have huge blind spots where they could be confronted with their own unhandled issues

 

Do you wait until they're fully adults, their minds much less open to learning and changes in their view of the world? Do you assume that they won't have an accident, or lose someone close to them, and be traumatised anyway?

 

Accidents happen, people are traumatized, they don't usually turn into psychopaths. Trying to shelter children from all harm is itself a cause of mental illness.

 

You can start training and treatment right when they enter the order (never happened with Anakin), no matter what their age. Psychotherapy works fine for adults.

 

More importantly, you can start their training while they grow up with their parents. No separation trauma's and you can start their meditation and self-control training in a secure environment.

 

My analogy wasn't exact. I was just pointing out that the best of two bad things can still be considered good, if there is no better alternative.

 

There are better alternatives, like letting them grow up in their own families and make their Jedi training part of their own world. Another option is to allow the children to attach to secure caretakers within the Jedi community - but that requires that those Jedi caretakers build attachments to these children, become their adopted parents ...

 

 

 

I think much of this comes down to inconsistent portrayal.

Because nobody, especially Lucas, thought it through properly.

 

Based on what I've seen and read - and I stress that that isn't a huge amount - I suspect that what the Jedi really want to teach is not "never have attachments" but rather "never be unable to detach yourself".

 

I am not convinced that is even possible. How attached are you when you can detach yourself just as easily? Wouldn't children, especially force sensitive children, be aware of such shallow attachments?

 

Hence, Obi-Wan sees Anakin as his brother and is greatly hurt by Anakin's betrayal, but he is able to leave that connection aside in order to fight him.

Mhh, Anakin needed a father, or mother, not a brother. And what does it say about an attachment if it is so easily abandoned? Or is it survival, the need of the moment, people can do that, it's hardly a Jedi trait. It's also not the same as 'being able to detach', feels more a like a suspension

 

When Anakin is beaten, Obi-Wan allows himself to feel his anger and grief about what's happening; if he'd given in to those emotions during the fight he would have been distracted, off-balance, and would either have lost the fight or fallen to the Dark Side.

One misstep doesn't make a fall, Anakin required several of those to really 'fall to the Dark Side'

 

Based on this same idea, while the Jedi will always be wary of their members forming long-term relationships, they could be willing to trust a proven member in good standing (like Satele, or the Consular player character) to partake in such a relationship on the expectation that they would be able to put themselves beyond it, if and when that became necessary.

Those seem to be the exception, it would have to become 'standard practice' for Jedi who are to take care of the children they're training.

 

...yeah, we did kinda go off topic somewhere back there. Maybe we should start a separate Force Philosophy/Is the Jedi Order a psychopath factory? thread.

 

Heh, maybe. But it doesn't hurt to introduce these idea's first

Edited October 21, 2015 by nimmerstil

[gothshark]

I'll put in my 2 credits for the topic headline.

 

"Do any players consider the Empire to be the good guys?"

 

Now to put perspective on this, this falls in line with basic D&D rules, which I'm not sure if they realized when writing the stories, and giving us the choices we would have to make.

 

Empire as an governing body, falls squarely in the Lawful Evil category. As an Empire player, depending on choices made, You can be Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Evil, or Chaotic Evil. None of the choices you make allow you to be Lawful Good, only the Bounty Hunter can play the Good alignment properly.

 

This is not to say as a player, you can not have head canon that you have a Lawful Good Sith warrior. I do, because a Lawful Good Paladin type Pureblood Sith Warrior is kind of awesome as a concept. Which is something I did. Still I was very aware, the actual Alignment he has ended up would be somewhat Lawful Neutral, with a strong sense of Justice, and the desire to save people.

Edited October 21, 2015 by gothshark
half asleep typed the wrong word, lysdexia strikes again!

[nimmerstil]

Empire as an governing body, falls squarely in the Lawful Evil category. As an Empire player, depending on choices made, You can be Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Evil, or Chaotic Evil. None of the choices you make allow you to be Lawful Good, only the Bounty Hunter can play the Good alignment properly.

 

I am not convinced that is correct, lightside empire makes a lot of choices that are beneficial for the empire (amd good), they would be lawful (and good). But I might have my character background as motivation behind some choices sitting in there. I also find the lawful / chaotic axis not always clearly defined.

[gothshark]

I am not convinced that is correct, lightside empire makes a lot of choices that are beneficial for the empire (amd good), they would be lawful (and good). But I might have my character background as motivation behind some choices sitting in there. I also find the lawful / chaotic axis not always clearly defined.

 

"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

 

"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government."

 

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

 

-Due to the fact that as an Imperial player, you have to support a regime that uses injustice as a means to empower it's self, you are forced to subject others to injustice. The best you can be is Lawful Neutral, or Chaotic Good. Just based on post choice actions. ie you the player who always picks LS, will do plenty of actions which Violate the ideals of Lawful Good.

Edited October 21, 2015 by gothshark

[Joachimthbear]

Heh, maybe. But it doesn't hurt to introduce these idea's first

It is a very interesting subject. I think we'd need to resolve a few questions about what the Force is and what the Dark Side means before we can properly handle some of these problems.

 

Empire as an governing body, falls squarely in the Lawful Evil category. As an Empire player, depending on choices made, You can be Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Evil, or Chaotic Evil. None of the choices you make allow you to be Lawful Good, only the Bounty Hunter can play the Good alignment properly.

You're probably right; I'm not sure all Republic characters could be Lawful Good either. The Smuggler is involved in lawbreaking before you even take control, since the arms run into Ord Mantell is almost certainly breaking half a dozen laws even without taking into account who the intended recipients are. The Trooper is a less clear case; you have to make the occasional choice between defying a direct order (a breach of any soldier's code of rules) or committing an evil action, though you might say that the standing laws of war, whatever they are, supersede your orders. The two Jedi are probably able to stay Lawful Good throughout if you choose.

 

The case of the Bounty Hunter... well, there's another thread that's gone into that one at length. For myself, I'm not sure the Hunter's motivations could be considered consistently Good given the way the story is presented - you set out to kill a bunch of people who really don't deserve it for the sake of some combination of fame, profit or revenge. Lawful Neutral seems possible, given the whole "Mandalorian honour" angle.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Joachimthbear