Why do Sith and Jedi use swords instead of guns?

[KevMeup]

Why do Sith and Jedi use swords instead of guns?

 

In general, guns are not seen as an extension of the body like melee weapons are. So I think using such a unique weapon attunes them to the force, like a magician using a wand or staff. Jedis feel connected through the crystals they found and sith through the ones they crafted using the force.

 

That being said, I would friggen die saying giggity if I saw a sith attacking with a Gun-Kata and force use.

 

Through the movies, light sabers have become an unstoppable laser reflecting shield, which seems pretty retarded to me, but does make fights more entertaining to watch. Otherwise jedis would have to get something in between them and blaster fire, like picking up objects or jumping away. In that case, they would rely much more on their attunement with the force than the weapon they had in hand. So even if the light saber was just a "Dumbo's Feather" to them, it would be more valuable than a blaster in keeping them alive.

[divinecynic]

Jedi using guns? Oh they made a movie about that it's called Equilibrium

[phalczen]

Two linked reasons:

 

#1 George Lucas said so

#2

 

For 25,000 years starting with the Jed'aii and continuing with the Jedi and Sith, Those trained in the ways of the Force use lightsabers.

 

To elaborate on #1, Jedi use swords because Lucas' inspiration for Jedi Knights are samurai.

Beyond that, I'd have to go into Jedi Knight class story spoilers.

[FlavivsAetivs]

Samurai play a part but the inspiration for Jedi is primarily the Shaolin Monks.

 

~ Eudoxia

[RowanThursday]

Is it possible that guns would be too effective, and the misnamed snobbery is in-universe?

 

A lightsaber means "I will be next to you, and I will know you when I kill you."

 

True, that's only an ideal - you can throw a saber, or you can carry a blaster as well, or you can strike an honourable pose with your saber while your HK unit snipes them in the back, but possibly the reason Jedi are trained to look down on other methods of combat is to encourage them to be right next to their foe when he dies, to see the death and the maiming as close-up and viscerally as possible, so they can't distance themselves from it.

 

We're told that taking a life affects both the killer and the living force, even if it's done for a good reason. Maybe the main reason for encouraging melee weapons is not to make killing easier, but harder - to make sure that when Jedi have to kill, they have to face what they're doing, and suffer it, so it never gets easy.

 

Sith are a culture of martial tradition, and as for why they started using the things, the original Dark Jedi are likely in part those who when experiencing those close-up kills, didn't think "ugh, I must try to kill as little as possible", but instead "this... makes me feel strong" - hence, they continue to do it.

[Zharik]

To elaborate on #1, Jedi use swords because Lucas' inspiration for Jedi Knights are samurai.

Beyond that, I'd have to go into Jedi Knight class story spoilers.

 

So that's how they started out with the idea, but once they played around with the movie technology they saw it had the ultimate "coolness" factor. I mean really, it is pretty universally called the coolest weapon ever and that's more likely to sell movie tickets and toys than blaster using jedi or sith.

 

So to answer the OP, they use lightsabers (not swords) to sell more product. (and I am glad they do, because I had a fun childhood because of it!)

[AlrikFassbauer]

I was just thinking that a force-user that used the force to enhance his/her senses and physical abilities would be a lot more effective with a fire-arm. Only using Sabers for hand-to-hand combat or slicing into things. Most, if not all, people who fire weapons at Jedi/Sith are non-force users. but if we had a force user that used the force to practically make him/herself a kind of a real super soldier. I cant imagine a Sith with a saber or a Jedi with a saber winning.

 

You are merely thinking in too modern terms.

 

Star Wars is based on a much, much, much, much deeper basis - a tiny bit like The Lord Of The Rings is : It draws from legends and sources we don'Ät even recognize anymore these days. Star Wars even more obscured, since it is a "pop story", not a full-fledged "Saga" like Tolkien wanted it to be - and whereas Tolkien actually did outline a whole lot of mythology, for Star Wars that just didn't exist in the first place. The role-playing people of West End Games did that.

 

Also Star Wars draws a lot on Jepanese sword-fighting. Not that other countries had sword-fighting as well, but George Lucas war *very* impressed by Akira Kurosawa. Star Wars includes lots of "borrowed" "eastern" beliefs.

 

The other point is also true : Bladefighting requires a *lot* of more body control and training - more elegance, if done properly. Any highscool shootist can wield a gun in the U.S. ... But fighting with a sword ... Unfortunately a few people do that also, mainly drunk ones ...

 

There is a complete different "air" around wieling a gun, and wielding a sword. A sword - to properly use it - very clearly distinguishes the wielder from the rest. On a meta level, wielding a sword in Star Wars hints to a so much deeper RL history. A history, from which the word "courteous" comes from, for example. The Gladius was originally a *Celtic* device, quickly adopted by the Romans. And what was before that ? Axes made of Bronze ? Like those depicted on some of the "pillars" of Stonehenge ?

 

A sword in Star Wars points us to a so much richer and deeper RL history - whereas a gun is merely an effective weapon for the dumb. Too effective, if you ask me.

Edited September 16, 2016 by AlrikFassbauer

[Sage_of_Battle]

You are merely thinking in too modern terms.

 

Star Wars is based on a much, much, much, much deeper basis - a tiny bit like The Lord Of The Rings is : It draws from legends and sources we don'Ät even recognize anymore these days. Star Wars even more obscured, since it is a "pop story", not a full-fledged "Saga" like Tolkien wanted it to be - and whereas Tolkien actually did outline a whole lot of mythology, for Star Wars that just didn't exist in the first place. The role-playing people of West End Games did that.

 

Also Star Wars draws a lot on Jepanese sword-fighting. Not that other countries had sword-fighting as well, but George Lucas war *very* impressed by Akira Kurosawa. Star Wars includes lots of "borrowed" "eastern" beliefs.

 

The other point is also true : Bladefighting requires a *lot* of more body control and training - more elegance, if done properly. Any highscool shootist can wield a gun in the U.S. ... But fighting with a sword ... Unfortunately a few people do that also, mainly drunk ones ...

 

There is a complete different "air" around wieling a gun, and wielding a sword. A sword - to properly use it - very clearly distinguishes the wielder from the rest. On a meta level, wielding a sword in Star Wars hints to a so much deeper RL history. A history, from which the word "courteous" comes from, for example. The Gladius was originally a *Celtic* device, quickly adopted by the Romans. And what was before that ? Axes made of Bronze ? Like those depicted on some of the "pillars" of Stonehenge ?

 

A sword in Star Wars points us to a so much richer and deeper RL history - whereas a gun is merely an effective weapon for the dumb. Too effective, if you ask me.

 

 

Sounds like another person that likes to romanticize swords a bit too much. I wonder if you associate it with being "honorable" as well...

 

Ah yes, a gun is just oh so easy to use... if the target is 50 meters or less away from you. I wonder how you'd fare being put on a range and told to shoot a 300+ meter target? Under unfavorable conditions such as wind or rain? A target so far that anything short of a 2x optic magnification, you'd have a hard time just being able to see? And speaking of optics and targets, would you know how to zero a rifle? Do you even know what that term means? You think you can do the math in your head to be able to land a perfect shot with all the above mentioned conditions? Doubtful. You probably shouldn't romanticize and simultaneously put down something else just due to your infatuation with a work of fiction or romanticized history and your inexperience with the latter. Anyone can wield a sword as well, it's not that hard hacking someone to pieces. To be learned with a sword is a different question, same as a gun. And I'm sure if it came down to it and you had to pick one or the other in a life or death situation, you'd take that "weapon for the dumb" over a sword in a heart beat. This isn't to attack you, only to try and bring into perspective that they're different skills and being truly capable at either takes work and that using a gun isn't as simple as you made it out to be.

 

What you were truly right in was stating Lucas' inspiration for the Jedi, and that using a sword, or lightsaber in this case, distinguishes the person from the rest. The Jedi needed a form of uniqueness. But it still doesn't make it practical or as combat effective as they could be. If they wanted to be truly effective in combat, they'd use both lightsaber and blaster, similar to a Space Marine in Warhammer 40k.

 

 

 

Is it possible that guns would be too effective, and the misnamed snobbery is in-universe?

 

A lightsaber means "I will be next to you, and I will know you when I kill you."

 

True, that's only an ideal - you can throw a saber, or you can carry a blaster as well, or you can strike an honourable pose with your saber while your HK unit snipes them in the back, but possibly the reason Jedi are trained to look down on other methods of combat is to encourage them to be right next to their foe when he dies, to see the death and the maiming as close-up and viscerally as possible, so they can't distance themselves from it.

 

We're told that taking a life affects both the killer and the living force, even if it's done for a good reason. Maybe the main reason for encouraging melee weapons is not to make killing easier, but harder - to make sure that when Jedi have to kill, they have to face what they're doing, and suffer it, so it never gets easy.

 

Sith are a culture of martial tradition, and as for why they started using the things, the original Dark Jedi are likely in part those who when experiencing those close-up kills, didn't think "ugh, I must try to kill as little as possible", but instead "this... makes me feel strong" - hence, they continue to do it.

 

This actually makes a good deal of sense, being in line with the Jedi's "pacifistic" nature, so that they never get too comfortable with killing.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Sage_of_Battle

[FlavivsAetivs]

The other point is also true : Bladefighting requires a *lot* of more body control and training - more elegance, if done properly. Any highscool shootist can wield a gun in the U.S. ... But fighting with a sword ... Unfortunately a few people do that also, mainly drunk ones ...

 

There's a difference between shooting into a crowd where you have plenty of meat to hit, and actually hitting a target with skill and precision.

 

Bladefighting is a lot like boxing, in terms of things like stance, footing, and arm control. But having seen fully armored knights break REAL maces over each other's heads and fighting with REAL swords, there's nothing elegant about it, except when the absolutely most skilled fighters go against each other. Then there's a flurry of parrays for about 2 seconds followed by a few good whacks to their opponent's body or head.

 

That being said, without a guard on the hilt, lightsaber fighting virtually would amount to "finger sniping".

 

Ah yes, a gun is just oh so easy to use... if the target is 50 meters or less away from you. I wonder how you'd fare being put on a range and told to shoot a 300+ meter target? Under unfavorable conditions such as wind or rain? A target so far that anything short of a 2x optic magnification, you'd have a hard time just being able to see? And speaking of optics and targets, would you know how to zero a rifle? Do you even know what that term means? You think you can do the math in your head to be able to land a perfect shot with all the above mentioned conditions? Doubtful.

 

Glad to see someone who knows what they're talking about. Precision shooting, especially when it's difficult, is a lot of fun and very hard to do. I doubt most people could put 3 rounds in a grouping the size of a quarter in the bullseye of a 100 yard target. I know I can't.

 

What you were truly right in was stating Lucas' inspiration for the Jedi, and that using a sword, or lightsaber in this case, distinguishes the person from the rest. The Jedi needed a form of uniqueness. But it still doesn't make it practical or as combat effective as they could be. If they wanted to be truly effective in combat, they'd use both lightsaber and blaster, similar to a Space Marine in Warhammer 40k.

 

This is a pretty good summary. Sort of like the Dragoons of the British Empire.

 

However, assuming you can learn to repeatedly reflect blaster bolts back in the direction they came from, rather than randomly off to the side or whatever, then they effectively have both.

 

~ Eudoxia

Edited September 16, 2016 by FlavivsAetivs

[Sage_of_Battle]

There's a difference between shooting into a crowd where you have plenty of meat to hit, and actually hitting a target with skill and precision.

 

Bladefighting is a lot like boxing, in terms of things like stance, footing, and arm control. But having seen fully armored knights break REAL maces over each other's heads and fighting with REAL swords, there's nothing elegant about it, except when the absolutely most skilled fighters go against each other. Then there's a flurry of parrays for about 2 seconds followed by a few good whacks to their opponent's body or head.

 

That being said, without a guard on the hilt, lightsaber fighting virtually would amount to "finger sniping".

 

 

 

Glad to see someone who knows what they're talking about. Precision shooting, especially when it's difficult, is a lot of fun and very hard to do. I doubt most people could put 3 rounds in a grouping the size of a quarter in the bullseye of a 100 yard target. I know I can't.

 

 

 

This is a pretty good summary. Sort of like the Dragoons of the British Empire.

 

However, assuming you can learn to repeatedly reflect blaster bolts back in the direction they came from, rather than randomly off to the side or whatever, then they effectively have both.

 

~ Eudoxia

 

 

Indeed, there's a lot of technique that's involved with precise shooting and even on-the-fly math when you get to far off distances. From big things like stance, proper placement of stock or applying pressure in the right areas so that you can control the weapon, to smaller things like sight picture and remembering where you set your face and eyes on a stock so that your eyes are perfectly aligned with the sight. Much different than hosing a crowd with a pistol or shotgun.

 

In regards to a lightsaber serving as both melee weapon and a deflector for blaster bolts, that is true. But IIRC, being able to deflect a bolt back at the shooter requires additional motions than just deflecting the bolt whichever way. Motions that the Jedi or Sith may not have enough time to commit to, being swamped by blaster bolts. But then again, in that case I think it may just be better for the Jedi or Sith in question to just seek cover rather than try to reflect the bolts back or in our hypothetical situation, defend from the bolts and shoot with the blaster simultaneously.

[VitalityPrime]

I read somewhere, though I cannot seem to remember where...that swords and whatnot came heavily into play once energy shields came about. The shields were able to block most blaster fire with ease, So the use of swords, etc. became more prominent because of the blaster fire shielding. Edited September 17, 2016 by VitalityPrime

[Spetulhu]

I read somewhere, though I cannot seem to remember where...that swords and whatnot came heavily into play once energy shields came about. .

 

Are you sure you're not thinking about Frank Herbert's Dune books now? They had projectile weapons and manportable lasguns capable of cutting tanks in two even in pistol-sized packages, but still went with swords and knives because of personal shields. Ofc it wasn't just that the shield stopped projectiles traveling too fast, it was because a lasgun hitting a shield caused an explosion that maybe killed only shooter and target but more likely went up like a small nuke...

[therecanonlybeon]

"An elegant weapon for a more civilized age."

 

well my guess is that You can use it not only as a weapon but as a shield of sort as well since you can deflect projectiles or parry melee attacks, not to mention you can cut through objects - like door/floor/wall whatever

 

except that, normal person shouldnt be able to wield it, so even if they disarm you and take your weapon, they wont be able to use it against you without chopping their own head off?

 

lightsabers are a symbol as well, and jedi were guardians of peace so this "weapon" became symbol of peace and hope sort of.

[dcaleb]

Or the Sith could be behind cover or have awesome blaster bolt stopping powers like Vader in ESB.

 

Its my understanding that being able to deflect or absorb energy requires a high level of skill that your average force user can only dream of achieving. Thats why we have only ever seen uber awesome characters like Yoda, Vader, and Satele do it.

 

 

 

But cover would be a problem for the light saber wielder if they aren't able to get close.

[therecanonlybeon]

Even if every force user was able to deal with blaster bolts without lightsaber its still good to have two options or more if you count energy shield and armor etc.

[NekoAggelou]

Why do Sith and Jedi use swords instead of guns?

 

Because they can reflect laser bolts

 

/thread

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(and maybe 'cause the Force already allows them to handle danger from a distance–or cause it).

[YaanaOhtar]

Like everyone said, the most important thing is it can tune to the force, guns are not made with force crystal, a force user uses gun can't tune to his weapon as good as the one using a lightsaber. They can reinforce the lightsaber while they can't do anything with guns. Next is because it act like a shield, I don't care how good you are with your gun but you can only fire so many bullets at a time and they will get a lucky shot. Finally, sword don't running out of bullets, Quote: "Vendetta" : " what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty I'm no longer be standing, because if I am you'll all be dead before you've reloaded ", A Force user with gun will be dead if they fight against another one with lightsaber.

[Sage_of_Battle]

Like everyone said, the most important thing is it can tune to the force, guns are not made with force crystal, a force user uses gun can't tune to his weapon as good as the one using a lightsaber. They can reinforce the lightsaber while they can't do anything with guns. Next is because it act like a shield, I don't care how good you are with your gun but you can only fire so many bullets at a time and they will get a lucky shot. Finally, sword don't running out of bullets, Quote: "Vendetta" : " what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty I'm no longer be standing, because if I am you'll all be dead before you've reloaded ", A Force user with gun will be dead if they fight against another one with lightsaber.

 

Who's 'everyone'? There's really no evidence that a Jedi would perform worse with a blaster, considering the Jedi poster boy, Luke, also used one. Quite the contrary, Jedi have been led to extinction by blaster wielding armies. Lightsabers really aren't as tactically advantageous as you may think.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Sage_of_Battle

[MadDutchman]

Well, Ezra gives us another example of Jedi using blasters effectively.

 

Without going into season 3 spoilers, Ezra is comfortable, and highly competent, with his blaster and when he does switch on his lightsaber against a large group of stormtroopers, he still uses the blaster is his other hand to great effect.

 

Simply put, when he's in close (when a real life sword would have an advantage over a gun) or needs to deflect blaster bolts, he uses the lightsaber. Otherwise, he uses his blaster and the occasional bit of TK, which are far more effective at range.

 

The lightsaber is clearly an effective weapon in the hands of a Jedi, but it is not good at everything. This is why I think the old republic Jedi's attitude towards blasters is just arrogance, not based in actual intelligent strategy.

[YaanaOhtar]

Who's 'everyone'? There's really no evidence that a Jedi would perform worse with a blaster, considering the Jedi poster boy, Luke, also used one. Quite the contrary, Jedi have been led to extinction by blaster wielding armies. Lightsabers really aren't as tactically advantageous as you may think.

 

Evidence of bad performance : 1/ cant destroy blast door, can't destory tank, wont work against shielding. 2/ Cant become shield, user need to move around to dodge incoming blasters. 3/ Out of bullet ? You are dead. Need any more ?

[Rolodome]

Gun can't deflect gunfire. Laser sword can (in the star wars universe anyway).

[JediAkemi]

Gun can't deflect gunfire. Laser sword can (in the star wars universe anyway).

 

Actually, a Twi'lek Grey Paladin (Jedi offshoots who use other weapons) in the Coruscant Nights trilogy of books wielded dual blaster pistols and was able to use the Force to make it so she could intercept incoming blaster bolts with her own.

Edited September 26, 2016 by JediAkemi
typo

[Sage_of_Battle]

Evidence of bad performance : 1/ cant destroy blast door, can't destory tank, wont work against shielding. 2/ Cant become shield, user need to move around to dodge incoming blasters. 3/ Out of bullet ? You are dead. Need any more ?

 

1. That's what explosives are for. Last I checked, there's more evidence of that being effective against blast doors than lightsabers. A lightsaber can destroy a tank? Don't think so. Maybe if they slipped inside. But it'd be much easier and effective to use Anti-Tank rockets and explosives. And there is shielding, armor, even vibroblades that are resistant and can even turn off lightsabers.

 

2. Can't become a shield? And a lightsaber can? Clearly not, as there's evidence of saber wielders being overwhelmed by blaster fire IE: Ki Adi Mundi(a High Jedi Council member, one of the best) in ROTS along with.... the entirety of the Jedi Order. I mean seriously, there's more evidence of bad performance on the side of lightsaber wielders against blaster wielding opponents than vice versa. Again, armies of blaster wielders have overwhelmed and hunted down Jedi to extinction. A blaster wielder doesn't need to "move around" to dodge projectiles. Just get behind a good piece of cover, which, clearly by the example listed above, would be better at protecting the person than a lightsaber would. Lightsabers are good defending against a small handful of opponents with blasters but when the numbers start stacking, standing out in the open with a glowstick doesn't remain viable.

 

3. Blasters don't use bullets and even if they did, there's alternative weapons.

 

Do you have anymore? And please, try to make sense with them. Also, your 'evidence' had no correlation to what I said. I said there's no evidence that a Jedi would perform worse with a blaster along with a lightsaber. You started listing some randomness about lightsabers being better than blasters.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Sage_of_Battle

[YaanaOhtar]

1. That's what explosives are for. Last I checked, there's more evidence of that being effective against blast doors than lightsabers. A lightsaber can destroy a tank? Don't think so. Maybe if they slipped inside. But it'd be much easier and effective to use Anti-Tank rockets and explosives. And there is shielding, armor, even vibroblades that are resistant and can even turn off lightsabers.

 

2. Can't become a shield? And a lightsaber can? Clearly not, as there's evidence of saber wielders being overwhelmed by blaster fire IE: Ki Adi Mundi(a High Jedi Council member, one of the best) in ROTS along with.... the entirety of the Jedi Order. I mean seriously, there's more evidence of bad performance on the side of lightsaber wielders against blaster wielding opponents than vice versa. Again, armies of blaster wielders have overwhelmed and hunted down Jedi to extinction. A blaster wielder doesn't need to "move around" to dodge projectiles. Just get behind a good piece of cover, which, clearly by the example listed above, would be better at protecting the person than a lightsaber would.

 

3. Blasters don't use bullets and even if they did, there's alternative weapons.

 

Do you have anymore? And please, try to make sense with them. Also, your 'evidence' had no correlation to what I said. I said there's no evidence that a Jedi would perform worse with a blaster along with a lightsaber. You started listing some randomness about lightsabers being better than blasters.

 

1- It's really easy to predict what simple mind peoples are thinking. Really ? Rocket Launcher, Explosive ? Hey I have a better idea, a tank will be more effective, an army of Jedi should drive tanks. What a simple mind. Carrying a rocket launcher ? Great idea there, Rocket Launcher need rockets, i think they should carry rocket with them too, and explosives, and gun, and ammo. You know what I think they should bring the legendary "Inventory" from games so they can stuff a tank in it too. Lightsaber can destroy tank when the user get close my dear. They just need to stab into the engine. Blastdoor idea is to prevent explosive, to carry enough explosive to destroy a blastdoor, well we have rocket launcher right ? Those shield ? That is what tuning to the force for. Jedi can enhance their lightsaber through the force.

 

2- Ya, just hiding right ? Really, you should stop this trend of simple thought, it is bad. First, the jedi were killed because of betrayal, with guns or not if you are stabbed behind your back by your men, you will die. Second, apparently Jedi with sword can't run away and have to stay and fought head on, only those with guns know how to hide behind cover. Lols, my dear, Jedi have force, they can hide and smash everyone with a simple force blast, it is more effective that your stupid guns. And you still can't disprove that Lightsaber can give a better protection than gun.

 

3- Lolz, blaster don't use bullets, mwhahaha. Check again in all starwar wiki, blaster need bullets- not the same as our guns but still.. -

 

Want to know why Force user should not carry a gun with them ? because it is useless and may restrict their movement. their style of fighting require a lot of movement that wearing a side arm and ammo would more likely weight them down than helping. Let's look at Ezra case, constantly switch between sword and gun, that 1 sec of switching is more than enough to be killed, in fact he's gotten his *** kicked a lot.

Edited September 26, 2016 by YaanaOhtar

[MadDutchman]

Let's look at Ezra case, constantly switch between sword and gun, that 1 sec of switching is more than enough to be killed, in fact he's gotten his *** kicked a lot.

 

Uh, what? Are we talking about the same Ezra here?

 

1. Never takes him anywhere near a second

2. Did you miss the dual wield part?

3. Yep, all them stormtroopers, you know, the dead ones, kicked his *** plenty...

Hell even when Ezra was using a slingshot, he never really had any problem avoiding blaster bolts.

 

 

You seem to have a very Jedi like attitude towards an argument, one or the other, never both, never something in between. Convenient for philosophical discussion, useless in the real world.

 

 

Arguing whether one or the other is inferior/superior is pointless. They are totally different weapons for totally different purposes.