First of all, I'm sure it has already been explained that no rebels or innocents died on the death star.
Second, who would have thought of that anyway? A few more minutes and all the rebels in the galaxy pretty much would have died and hope had died forever. Damn, Luke couldn't even be sure he would do it, he was the single fighter left on that place with Darth Vader and the rest of the imperial fleet in the air, there wasn't that big a chance for success....
Re: Potentium: There is no light or dark side
Originally posted by Jedi_Snake
I've been reading the New Jedi Order and have just finished Rogue Planet and found out about this interesting perspective...I actually like this view of the Force...I like the idea that the darkness is inside the person no the Force itself...so Anakin wouldn't have really been twisted by the dark side, but instead the Force was twisted by the darkness inside Anakin...
What do you folks think about Potentium?
I like this view of the Force better. It makes for great storytelling as wellas debates.
Originally posted by kamikz
First of all, I'm sure it has already been explained that no rebels or innocents died on the death star.Second, who would have thought of that anyway? A few more minutes and all the rebels in the galaxy pretty much would have died and hope had died forever. Damn, Luke couldn't even be sure he would do it, he was the single fighter left on that place with Darth Vader and the rest of the imperial fleet in the air, there wasn't that big a chance for success....
oh come on! of course there are bound to be innocents. what about all those stormtroopers who are just earning a living, keeping the galaxy safe. They were not evil, the EMPEROR WAS. I bet half of those stormtroopers on the DS didnt want to be there, or that half of them were fresh out of the academy and hadn't even killed anyone! And are you SERIOUSLY telling me that there were NO technicians on hand on that monstrosity to make sure nothing broke down? yeah, right.
And as for the comlink scenario, fair enough - and of course the fundamental flaw is also that there really WOULDNT be enough time. But the rebels could have announced their intentions and have given people the chance to flea
I think the Potentium view is interesting but wrong, just like the Jedi view as of PT. You can say GL said that there is only Light and Dark, but I don't think that. And in part I agree with what starwarsfreak34 is saying. Lucas is an idiot. But he's still the boss of SW. However, when did he ever deny the Potentium? Never!
Originally posted by Tangible God
God, I hate hearing that f*ckin' argument:"The Rebels were bad guys, if they really cared, they wouldn't have killed all those innocents on the Death Stars."
Really? Wow, well then... Empire all the way, woot!
i'm not sayin that at all - the rebels were the good guys. if would have been different though if the empire was ruled by someone who cared for the people and not their own power. all i am sayin is that things aren't as clean-cut as Light and Dark.
Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
I think the Potentium view is interesting but wrong, just like the Jedi view as of PT. You can say GL said that there is only Light and Dark, but I don't think that. And in part I agree with what starwarsfreak34 is saying. Lucas is an idiot. But he's still the boss of SW. However, when did he ever deny the Potentium? Never!
quite true - and i'll be the first to admit that the Potentium does have some flaws there.... that's the other things that galls me about GL though - if the EU is nothing to do with the films then why does he stick his big head into the pot and say 'right, this can't happen, or i don't want this to happen'? he did it with Star by Star and said that Anakin had to die insead of Jacen (because he didn't want the story of two Anakins being told at the same time <and in the sublevels of that we hear 'and falling to the dark side, too...'> and he continues to do this with things like yoda's species - expressedly forbidding the writers from touching on this time and time again. if the EU is a load of rubbish to him, then why does it matter so much?
and, no, i don't think he had EVER denied the Potentium - until he does, stuf the L/D side view. the Potentium makes more sense.
Originally posted by starwarsfreak34They never are, but it's not as clear cut as "There is NO Dark or Light" either.
i'm not sayin that at all - the rebels were the good guys. if would have been different though if the empire was ruled by someone who cared for the people and not their own power. all i am sayin is that things aren't as clean-cut as Light and Dark.
My own view is that there is one Force, and the user himself determines how it's used.
Originally posted by Tangible God
They never are, but it's not as clear cut as "There is NO Dark or Light" either.My own view is that there is one Force, and the user himself determines how it's used.
then why the hell are we arguing. the point i've been trying to make is that there is only ONE Force, and that the only darkness is that which stems from the user. the point i'm arguing against is that the Force does not take sides, therefore no dark side 'of the Force' and no light side ' of the Force'. of course there IS darkness and goodness in PEOPLE. it's what you do with the force that counts - my point is that why can't someone use force lightening or other coined 'dark powers' and still remain good?
it's like saying a Jedi is evil for having a crimson lightsaber blade - simply because crimson has been associated with the bad guys in the films.
If there is only one force, and that it is the user itself whic hthe darkness stems from, can someone explain why the dark side of it is so corruptive, and so controlling over the user, for instance, Anakin. That's what I do not understand, does that self destructive self-controlling power come from the user itself?
Originally posted by exanda kane
If there is only one force, and that it is the user itself whic hthe darkness stems from, can someone explain why the dark side of it is so corruptive, and so controlling over the user, for instance, Anakin. That's what I do not understand, does that self destructive self-controlling power come from the user itself?
again, it's not the dark side of the Force - but of the person's own darkness. in answer to your question: look at it like a drug. it's the power that it brings; the user becomes addicted to it, and needs to feel it again and again. Anakin wasnt strong enough to resist in the end.
But isn't the the Force evident in every living thing in midichlorians? So saying the the darkness comes from the user could be seen as the darkness coming from the Force inside the user? Therefore it is the dark side of the force, in that user, but at the same time, a darkness inside the user.
The way I look at it, it's only small technicalities that seperate the distinctions.
Originally posted by starwarsfreak34........Who's arguing? I'm not.
then why the hell are we arguing. the point i've been trying to make is that there is only ONE Force, and that the only darkness is that which stems from the user. the point i'm arguing against is that the Force does not take sides, therefore no dark side 'of the Force' and no light side ' of the Force'. of course there IS darkness and goodness in PEOPLE. it's what you do with the force that counts - my point is that why can't someone use force lightening or other coined 'dark powers' and still remain good?it's like saying a Jedi is evil for having a crimson lightsaber blade - simply because crimson has been associated with the bad guys in the films.
Everyone has the potential to be "dark." It's the experiences, intentions, and choices of the Force-user which determines whether that darkness takes hold. And when it does, they touch the Dark Side of the Force.
You know, the word "Side" really does make it seem as if it's one Force and Light and Dark compose it. Just like how there's one planet, and it's composed of a North and South. It's the person himself which determines where he's located on the planet.
um - thats were we're still arguing i think. it's the dark side of themselves they touch. and your analogy is self-defeating; with a planet, there is the middle area, the terminus line if you will. and this is where other people argue, because they dont think there is a middle line with the Force because GL has said there is the Light and Dark.
the problem people have is differentiating between using the Force and doing good, no matter how the Force is used. simply using lightening does not make one dark - and it is not born of the Dark Side. my favourite scenario for this is thus:
imagine you're a Jedi, and you're on a mission to rescue some hostages being held on a convoy ship or whatnot. you've infiltrated the enemy and there are all the hostages. the bad guys cannot see you, but you can see them - and you see that no matter what happens, innocent life will be lost.... unless you can somehow take out all the bad guys at the same time.
if this was me, i'd use Force lightening to send a spark into each of the terrorists and neutralise them. does this make me a bad person? have i gone to the dark side? no on both accounts. i've saved all the hostages, rid the galaxy of some terrorists.... and i'm still the same person.
i'll say it again, people confuse light and dark simple because of the powers used in the film. you see someone like sidious use lightening and you think 'oooo dark side' because we know he is EVIL, so was assocciate that power with GL's dark side. on the other hand, i see Darth Tyrannus as a good guy who uses lightening - as i believe that he genuinely wanted a better galaxy, but was misguided and manipulated by palpatine. as Ki-Adi Mundi said 'he's a political idealist'.
Originally posted by starwarsfreak34
imagine you're a Jedi, and you're on a mission to rescue some hostages being held on a convoy ship or whatnot. you've infiltrated the enemy and there are all the hostages. the bad guys cannot see you, but you can see them - and you see that no matter what happens, innocent life will be lost.... unless you can somehow take out all the bad guys at the same time.if this was me, i'd use Force lightening to send a spark into each of the terrorists and neutralise them. does this make me a bad person? have i gone to the dark side? no on both accounts. i've saved all the hostages, rid the galaxy of some terrorists.... and i'm still the same person.
I'm sorry but a "Jedi", imagine they are of the Order, perhaps it could even be Obi-Wan Kenobi, just to make ends meet, would not unleash lightning on a group of unaware victims, it goes against the Jedi code for a reason; it takes life.
The scenario I would expect would of course, have that particular Jedi cause some disturbance to divert attention to something else: a distraction perhaps, or maybe even just make all the terrorists fall asleep on unconscious. Or, hell, could just use some Jedi tricks of the mind on them all.
It is that recklessness of the user that causes the dark side of the force to take control, that need or want to take risks, whether they are necessary at all. from this conclusion it makes me feel that the Force is not neutral, there is definetly a ying and a yang. However it is the mind and heart of the practioner which allows the user to be more susceptible to one side of the Force than the other.
ok, now you're nit-picking. first of all, obi-wan has killed before. did he not kill Darth Maul? and before you go ahead and say, 'but Maul was a Sith', does this make the terrorist any less evil? second, it's been said time and time again that mind-tricks only work on the weakminded, and is not as effective when there are too many people, especially as some are more strong-minded than others.
so for the sake of nit-picking - let's say that all the terrorists and the hostages are so close together that a simple distraction would not be enough to save everyone or to divert the attention of ALL the terrorists at once. lets say, again for the sake of nit-picking, that this Jedi is in a scenario - ANY scenario - where the only option is to take the life of all the terrorists/bad guys and save the lives of all the hostages. Does he a) take the most effective means of disposing of the bad guys all at once, with no risk of collateral damage to the hostages.... or b) sit back and let corrupt politicians barter for lives, which could result in the death of a handful or all of the hostages.
😛 I can be picky too 🙂