Was Vader defeat by Luke a fluke?

It is best simply to say that Luke beat Vader.

The Sith Lord had knowledge on the subject of anger, and if he failed to conjure up his own, then what of it?

He was beaten.

Beautifully succinct.

Originally posted by Happy_Sith
It is best simply to say that Luke beat Vader.

The Sith Lord had knowledge on the subject of anger, and if he failed to conjure up his own, then what of it?

He was beaten.

no,vader could of beaten luke however i agree he was overpowered at the moment by lukes rage,it was unexpected
Its jsut typical that vader held back because of his emotions for his son. In ROTS vader used tk to destroy an entire facility,why cant he telekenitically kill luke,i know its the strenght of the jedis aura that matter,but vader was more powerfull then luke.so there im confused with.

Originally posted by darthbane99
no,vader could of beaten luke however i agree he was overpowered at the moment by lukes rage,it was unexpected
Its jsut typical that vader held back because of his emotions for his son. In ROTS vader used tk to destroy an entire facility,why cant he telekenitically kill luke,i know its the strenght of the jedis aura that matter,but vader was more powerfull then luke.so there im confused with.

No, Vader could have beaten Luke. I do however agree that he was overpowered by Luke's rage at that moment. It was unexpected. It is just (typical?) that Vader held back because of how he feels for his son.

In RotS, Vader used TK to destroy an entire facility, so why can't he use TK to kill Luke ? I know that the strength of the Jedi 'aura' is what matters, but Vader was more powerful than Luke. That's why I'm confused.

I'm not correcting you by the way, I'm just helping. 🙂

I'm just helping.

You are kind of a prick. 😛

Srsly tho, thur is a diff b/t bein a helper (that's me!) and a doosh. Don't be a D-bag. (That's me!)

Yes, I'll be the subtle one, then you can be the ... you ... one.

I'm a helper!

I just realised I bring everything off topic, so this time I will stay on topic for as long as possible.

Originally posted by darthbane99
no,vader could of beaten luke however i agree he was overpowered at the moment by lukes rage,it was unexpected

I agree, although I wouldn't say unexpected ... I mean, he was trying to force Luke to get into a hissy fit.

Originally posted by darthbane99
Its jsut typical that vader held back because of his emotions for his son.

If you mean understandable in stead of typical, then yes it is.

Originally posted by darthbane99
In ROTS vader used tk to destroy an entire facility,why cant he telekenitically kill luke,i know its the strenght of the jedis aura that matter,but vader was more powerfull then luke.

Jedi aura= the Force ?
He could do that, but that would piss of the Emperor. That's why he didn't.

Originally posted by darthbane99
so there im confused with.

I know why you're confused. 😕

Well its good to know slash is supporting the "competition" for me!
Held back by the emperor,and placated luke? Hun..seems possible vader played both sides.

I donno if lord vader was acting out of orders or his rage,i think its better or more realistic that he was acting out of orders,i dont even believe he wanted to kill luke,maybe his dark side did,but all jedi have dark sides and vader wasnt so perverted to completely forget himself. I think its the emperor who held vader back,seeing vader would be lease powerful and to old to fight,so he enlisted the young luke as a pitdog to kill vader.

Im not sure if its a fluke,its to intentional and drastic to be otherwise.