What did Anakin "balancing the force" really mean?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Eli Vanto
Most seem to think that Anakin bringing balance to the force in ROTJ meant the eradication of the Sith, and the light side to prevail again.

But in current canon, maybe that isn't what the balance was at all. Maybe the balance he brought back was just ensuring that there would be equal dark and equal light in the galaxy moving forward?

Thoughts?

qwertyuiop1998
I think Anakin fulfilled the prophery by wiping most of jedi and killing the sith lord(Sidious) temporarily. Makes the galaxy a place free from both jedi and sith
Thus ensuring the majority of normal people can decide their fate.
Though the canon never stated it. I feel more convincible that bringing balance to the force was meant to be a universal nature. Not just mere sith and jedi conflicts
After all, Isn't the force existing in everywhere, Connecting everything together? Jedi and sith just one of the force's aspects

Galan007
I'm pretty sure GL's intent in the original films was that total eradication of the Sith = "balance". However, The Son's comment in the Mortis trilogy(which GL was also heavily involved in creating) altered that a bit: "How simple you make it...Light and dark...As if there is one without the other."

And Snoke's statement from TLJ cements this concept: "Darkness rises, and light to meet it... I warned my young apprentice that as he grew stronger, his equal in the light would rise."

IOW, if there is light there will always be equal dark, and vice versa. The Force will always strive to balance itself out. Anakin fulfilling the prophesy essentially removed the overwhelming dark side presence from the galaxy, and rebalanced the light/dark ratio a bit... Albeit briefly.

That said, you could still poke holes in this concept all day long.

Eli Vanto
I wonder why more force users don't take a page from the Prime Jedi's book, and use BOTH sides of the force to achieve perfect balance?

Wouldn't that be like the ultimate way to balance the force?

The Merchant
It's inconsistent and most likely always will be tbh. My headcanon is destroying the Sith still leads to balance for the most part because the Sith are always trying to manipulate both sides the biggest evidence being Revan and Bane talking to the Son. Doesn't mean other dark siders don't do this however.

Underachiever59
Yeah, even George Lucas appeared a bit muddled on what "balance" actually means, with his stance seeming to repeatedly change over the years. I mostly agree with Galan007's opinion here.

However, just going off of some of George Lucas' interviews, con appearances, and the like, my take away regarding balance in the Force is a little different. From what I can tell, George's primary view on balance is that the light side is the Force in balance, and the dark side is imbalance. Light side Force users follow the will of the Force, while dark side Force users twist the Force to their will instead. When Anakin renounced the dark side and slew Palpatine, the two largest sources of imbalance in the galaxy disappeared, tipping the scales back toward their natural state.

Of course, this is severely damaged by Palpatine's revival in both Canon and Legends, and the continued existence of major Dark Side powers in Legends well beyond the point of the movies. I guess the Prophecy isn't all it was cracked up to be. As Yoda put it, "a prophecy that misread could have been." It's possible that Anakin's role in the prophecy was simply to destroy the Sith tradition as it had been, ending the Banite line. This technically holds true in both Canon (Palpatine never took on another apprentice after Vader) and Legends (Lumiya was not a Banite Sith, and Darth Krayt radically reorganized the Sith as we think of them).

Personally, I like Alex's take from Star Wars Explained. There may not be a singular, true "Chosen One," but rather a 'chosen one' each generation. During the Clone Wars, it was Anakin. During the Galactic Civil War, Luke. During the First Order Uprising, Rey. For the Old Republic, we had Nomi, Revan, and the Outlander. During the High Republic, it sounds like either Avar Kriss or Stellan Gios could fit this role as well.

From what we've seen, the Force likes to choose vessels to carry out its will. The examples I provided above tend to possess roughly the same caliber of gift as Anakin (if not quite to the same extent). They all develop in the Force at an insane rate, rapidly surpassing most of the masters of their era by the time they're just reaching Knighthood, despite many of them becoming a Jedi much later in their lives than normal. And they all have a monumental role to play in galactic events, particularly when it comes to preventing the Sith from gaining a permanent foothold. The chosen one story of a fated Jedi hero stopping the Sith in their tracks is one that's played out several times throughout the Star Wars mythos, so it makes sense for the Prophecy to possibly apply to each generation instead of one particular point in time.

Galan007
Originally posted by Eli Vanto
I wonder why more force users don't take a page from the Prime Jedi's book, and use BOTH sides of the force to achieve perfect balance?

Wouldn't that be like the ultimate way to balance the force? Because it's not exactly easy for a Jedi to freely access the dark side, without being corrupted by it.

Ezra is about the only Jedi I can think of in canon who seems to be able to use the dark side at will(as seen when he opened/studied the Sith holocron), without showing a clear affinity towards it. It's very rare for a Force user to be able to harness both aspects like that, while maintaining their own inner balance.

Underachiever59
Originally posted by Galan007
Because it's not exactly easy for a Jedi to freely access the dark side, without being corrupted by it.

Ezra is about the only Jedi I can think of in canon who seems to be able to use the dark side at will(as seen when he opened/studied the Sith holocron), without showing a clear affinity towards it. It's very rare for a Force user to be able to harness both aspects like that, while maintaining their own inner balance.

I don't know. I'd argue Ezra did display a clear affinity toward the dark side up through the Season 3 premiere.

His first Force push was an act of fear (for a friend). His first two encounters with the Grand Inquisitor both have him displaying dark side emotions, with Ezra subconsciously drawing on it during the second encounter to summon the large fyrnock. The groundwork was all there to show Ezra falling to the dark side.

It wasn't until season 3, when Ezra realized the cost that was born of his actions that he chose to renounce his dabbling of the dark side. At the very least, I would certainly never call Ezra "balanced" in regards to his use of the light and dark sides of the Force. When he started willingly using the dark side, he went full dark side.

Freedon Nadd
Lucas never intended to make sequels to his Original Trilogy.

DaltonChance
Originally posted by Galan007
I'm pretty sure GL's intent in the original films was that total eradication of the Sith = "balance". However, The Son's comment in the Mortis trilogy(which GL was also heavily involved in creating) altered that a bit: "How simple you make it...Light and dark...As if there is one without the other."

And Snoke's statement from TLJ cements this concept: "Darkness rises, and light to meet it... I warned my young apprentice that as he grew stronger, his equal in the light would rise."

IOW, if there is light there will always be equal dark, and vice versa. The Force will always strive to balance itself out. Anakin fulfilling the prophesy essentially removed the overwhelming dark side presence from the galaxy, and rebalanced the light/dark ratio a bit... Albeit briefly.

That said, you could still poke holes in this concept all day long. In the prequels you can see equals in light and dark with the constructions names. Every major Jedi had a nemesis with the same power. Count Dooku & Mace Windu, Yoda & Palpatine, Vader & Obi-wan.

Luke was a middle runner but in the sequel trilogy you had an undead Sith Lord housing all the Sith Spirits and the entire Jedi Ghost Brigade.

So it was really off balance because you had more Jedi, then after Vader wiped them out it was off-balance until Luke redeemed him, then in Rise of Skywalker we have all the Sith Spirits and all the Jedi Spirits facing off in two individuals really, Rey and Palpatine, what Vader really did was cause that to happen

Galan007
Originally posted by Underachiever59
I don't know. I'd argue Ezra did display a clear affinity toward the dark side up through the Season 3 premiere.

His first Force push was an act of fear (for a friend). His first two encounters with the Grand Inquisitor both have him displaying dark side emotions, with Ezra subconsciously drawing on it during the second encounter to summon the large fyrnock. The groundwork was all there to show Ezra falling to the dark side.

It wasn't until season 3, when Ezra realized the cost that was born of his actions that he chose to renounce his dabbling of the dark side. At the very least, I would certainly never call Ezra "balanced" in regards to his use of the light and dark sides of the Force. When he started willingly using the dark side, he went full dark side. I don't think Ezra went "full" dark side, but he certainly used the dark side without being corrupted by it. There was definitely something special/unique about young Ezra, imo.

Vader alluded to it in S02: "You have unlocked the secret of the Temple. How did YOU accomplish this?"

And by S04, he was capable of fully unlocking the gateway to TWBW -- something not even Palpatine could do, and something I don't think any random Jedi could have done either.

Dominis
I think the dark side is necessary when tamed by the light, and it exists within everything. But when disconnected from the light, it is evil. Kinda like how according to christian teachings, anything disconnected from God's love is considered evil.

In the Mortis trilogy, it was suggested that The Son did not start out evil. He was necessary in protecting and watching out for his sister, The Daughter, it was his purpose.. but the more he disconnected himself from that purpose and started using his powers for selfish desires, he started to become evil. The scene with the sith spirits talking to The Son, in my mind, was supposed to represent the sith causing imbalance throughout history by disconnecting the dark side(The Son) from its purpose, and manipulating it for selfish goals.

Palpatine, being the embodiment of evil and "all the sith," took it to the extreme by not just wanting to disconnect the dark from the light, but by attempting to snuff the light out from the equation completely. In this way he would fashion the universe in his image. He views that the existence of light side is what's holding the dark side back from it's full potential, and is the only thing keeping him from his ultimate goal. Therefore, it was necessary that the force took extra steps to rid itself of Palpatine by creating Anakin.

relentless1
originally, I always assumed that Luke was the balance; taking the best of the Sith and the Jedi mannerisms into himself and the ST sort of goes in that direction as well except they tried to make Rey what Luke was supposed to be only they ****ed it up royally

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
I think the dark side is necessary when tamed by the light, and it exists within everything. But when disconnected from the light, it is evil. Kinda like how according to christian teachings, anything disconnected from God's love is considered evil.

In the Mortis trilogy, it was suggested that The Son did not start out evil. He was necessary in protecting and watching out for his sister, The Daughter, it was his purpose.. but the more he disconnected himself from that purpose and started using his powers for selfish desires, he started to become evil. The scene with the sith spirits talking to The Son, in my mind, was supposed to represent the sith causing imbalance throughout history by disconnecting the dark side(The Son) from its purpose, and manipulating it for selfish goals.

Palpatine, being the embodiment of evil and "all the sith," took it to the extreme by not just wanting to disconnect the dark from the light, but by attempting to snuff the light out from the equation completely. In this way he would fashion the universe in his image. He views that the existence of light side is what's holding the dark side back from it's full potential, and is the only thing keeping him from his ultimate goal. Therefore, it was necessary that the force took extra steps to rid itself of Palpatine by creating Anakin.

The Dark Side is embodiment of evil. It being kept in check by the Light Side does not make it any less evil or more "good".

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
The Dark Side is embodiment of evil. It being kept in check by the Light Side does not make it any less evil or more "good".


When I said Dark Side, I was referring to what the Son from TCW's Mortis Trilogy seems to represent, which isn't some evil side to the force. He is implied to be a necessary part of it, but when out harmony with the light (love), he became an opposing force.

But yes, the term "Dark Side" as we know it, and how it's often used by characters, tends to mean the evil side of the force. Just seems like George Lucas and now the story group of Lucasfilm wants it to be a bit more complicated than that (judging from The Mortis Arc, Luke's teachings to Rey about powerful light and darkness, the Prime Jedi and etc., all suggesting that the darker aspect of the force is necessary and isn't evil until disconnected from it's purpose and used/abused for selfish goals; for then a person becomes addicted to such power), and what I typed out was just an interpretation of that. Such interpretation suggests that true balance is when the darker aspect of the force is working in harmony with the light instead of opposing it, NOT that good ("light side"wink and evil ("dark side"wink are meant to be in eternal conflict--as if evil is a natural and necessary state-- the way some interpret it to be.

BTW, I'm not saying my interpretation is the absolute correct one. Just fun to share.

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
It being kept in check by the Light Side does not make it any less evil or more "good".

Also, if I wasn't clear, this statement is false, unless you're using the term "dark side" to describe evil. If that's the case, then I agree, evil is evil. However, things like death and violence, which are darker aspects of the force, aren't necessarily evil. For example, the act of killing Palpatine was an act of violence, but such an act, depending on how it was done, wasn't evil and was actually necessary for the light and life as we know it to thrive, since Palpatine was a threat to the light and all of life. But killing Palpatine out of revenge and hate, would have become a purely self motivated act, and would have opened a link for evil (Palpatine) to take over Rey's body. It's the intent. Using the darker aspects of the force (or "darkness" as Luke called it) for evil intentions corrupts the force and the individual using it, which is what the sith have been doing since recorded history.

When I say Palpatine is the embodiment of evil (if that's what you're taking issue with), well in the context of the story, that is exactly what he represents. He is the culmination of the sith, who are responsible for corrupting darkness and using it out of harmony with the light. He is completely cut off from the light, spreading his evilness throughout the cosmos and snuffing out the light in his quest to dominate and reshape reality in his image. Everything that is considered evil ("dark side"wink, Palpatine embodies to the fullest extent.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
When I said Dark Side, I was referring to what the Son from TCW's Mortis Trilogy seems to represent, which isn't some evil side to the force. He is implied to be a necessary part of it, but when out harmony with the light (love), he became an opposing force.

But yes, the term "Dark Side" as we know it, and how it's often used by characters, tends to mean the evil side of the force. Just seems like George Lucas and now the story group of Lucasfilm wants it to be a bit more complicated than that (judging from The Mortis Arc, Luke's teachings to Rey about powerful light and darkness, the Prime Jedi and etc., all suggesting that the darker aspect of the force is necessary and isn't evil until disconnected from it's purpose and used/abused for selfish goals; for then a person becomes addicted to such power), and what I typed out was just an interpretation of that. Such interpretation suggests that true balance is when the darker aspect of the force is working in harmony with the light instead of opposing it, NOT that good ("light side"wink and evil ("dark side"wink are meant to be in eternal conflict--as if evil is a natural and necessary state-- the way some interpret it to be.

BTW, I'm not saying my interpretation is the absolute correct one. Just fun to share.

Violence is not an act of "darkness" unless it is oppressive. Also, The Son is simply an embodiment of the Dark Side and an analogy to the Devil/Lucifer the Morning Star. You are also misunderstanding The Father. When he said too much light or dark would destroy universe, he was actually refering to radicalism because the sin is stored in us and we are flawed beings.
Too much dark(suffering) would simply send the galaxy into chaos and death.
Too much light(comfort) would make beings lose their minds, and start do crazy acts. Like how riches become pedophiles, etc

In the end it's us who are broke and not the universe itself. If we were robot or robot-likes, then too much light would not be a bad thing.

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
The Son is simply an embodiment of the Dark Side and an analogy to the Devil/Lucifer the Morning Star.


I don't see it, TBH. The only similarity between them, is that neither started out evil, except the devil is just a fallen angel, whose evil actions and manipulations caused a trickle down effect which is still being felt today; whereas The Son, from my understanding, is implied to be a necessary embodiment of something that exists within all living beings, an actual and necessary aspect of the force.


Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
You are also misunderstanding The Father. When he said too much light or dark would destroy universe, he was actually refering to radicalism because the sin is stored in us and we are flawed beings.
Too much dark(suffering) would simply send the galaxy into chaos and death.
Too much light(comfort) would make beings lose their minds, and start do crazy acts. Like how riches become pedophiles, etc

In the end it's us who are broke and not the universe itself.


How would you apply "bringing balance" as it pertains to the force to this interpretation?

And you believe The Son and The Daughter are two different representations of how the force is used/abused, instead of being actual aspects of it?

Galan007
The Ones were undoubtedly aspects of the cosmic Force. The balance on Mortis tipping one way or the other(via the Son or Daughter) directly impacted the Force in the material realm on a galactic scale.

The Father: "As the balance in this world crumbles, so shall war escalate in your galaxy... As my Son has descended into the dark side, so have the Sith gained strength."

Dominis
Originally posted by Galan007
The Ones were undoubtedly aspects of the cosmic Force. The balance on Mortis tipping one way or the other(via the Son or Daughter) directly impacted the Force in the material realm on a galactic scale.

The Father: "As the balance in this world crumbles, so shall war escalate in your galaxy... As my Son has descended into the dark side, so have the Sith gained strength."


Yeah, I agree with this. That's one of the quotes I'm remembering.

The Father makes a distinction between his son and the dark side/evil, not that his son is the embodiment of evil the way Nadd seems to be interpreting him to be. It kinda makes his use of the term radicalism seem kinda redundant if he believes there is no middle ground for The Son. IDK, I'm confused with his interpretation.

Galan007
Originally posted by Dominis
Yeah, I agree with this. That's one of the quotes I'm remembering.

The Father makes a distinction between his son and the dark side/evil, not that his son is the embodiment of evil the way Nadd seems to be interpreting him to be. It kinda makes his use of the term radicalism seem kinda redundant if he believes there is no middle ground for The Son. IDK, I'm confused with his interpretation. The Son didn't become 'evil' until he fully embraced the dark side during the Mortis trilogy itself. Prior to that, the implication is that his affinity towards the dark side had been kept in check throughout the eons The Ones had spent on Mortis.

I think Nadd is going a bit too 'meta' here. /shrug

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Galan007
The Ones were undoubtedly aspects of the cosmic Force. The balance on Mortis tipping one way or the other(via the Son or Daughter) directly impacted the Force in the material realm on a galactic scale.

The Father: "As the balance in this world crumbles, so shall war escalate in your galaxy... As my Son has descended into the dark side, so have the Sith gained strength."

And you say I am too meta. laughing out loud

The Son is an aspect of The Force. But what they were trying to tell was that the dark is unnatural in the galaxy. Rage, jealousy, etc were in The Son. The Daughter even mentions at some point that it is in his nature.
If I were to make an analogy. Think of Son as Devil and of Dark Side as negativism. While The Son is a self-aware etc astral being. He is still prone to fall to his animalistic nature.

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
And you say I am too meta. laughing out loud

The Son is an aspect of The Force. But what they were trying to tell was that the dark is unnatural in the galaxy. Rage, jealousy, etc were in The Son. The Daughter even mentions at some point that it is in his nature.
If I were to make an analogy. Think of Son as Devil and of Dark Side as negativism. While The Son is a self-aware etc astral being. He is still prone to fall to his animalistic nature.


Right.

But The Son's "animalistic" qualities didn't become a problem until used for selfish desires instead of protecting his sister. That's when he started to become "evil." In your first response to me, you seemed to disagree with that notion, suggesting it's always evil even if it's used in harmony with the light, protecting his sister. Then you later said violence, which is usually a result of animalistic qualities, isn't darkness (which I assume you meant evil) until it becomes oppressive. So, Unless I'm just not understanding you, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Also, if there is no point where the darker aspects of the son are NOT considered evil, then how does radicalism come to play here? If one side is completely evil, no matter how much it meets the opposite side in the middle, then the only way to not be evil, is by leaning all the way to the opposite side, right?

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
I don't see it, TBH. The only similarity between them, is that neither started out evil, except the devil is just a fallen angel, whose evil actions and manipulations caused a trickle down effect which is still being felt today; whereas The Son, from my understanding, is implied to be a necessary embodiment of something that exists within all living beings, an actual and necessary aspect of the force.





How would you apply "bringing balance" as it pertains to the force to this interpretation?

And you believe The Son and The Daughter are two different representations of how the force is used/abused, instead of being actual aspects of it?

Think of Son as Lucifer/Devil and Daughter as Jesus with Father being The Father.
Not really. It's more like sort of both. I believe they are party aspects of it. Otherwise the galaxy would have ceased to exist when Anakin kills The Son with the Mortis Dagger, and Father taking his life with it.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
Right.

But The Son's "animalistic" qualities didn't become a problem until used for selfish desires instead of protecting his sister. That's when he started to become "evil." In your first response to me, you seemed to disagree with that notion, suggesting it's always evil even if it's used in harmony with the light, protecting his sister. Then you later said violence, which is usually a result of animalistic qualities, isn't darkness (which I assume you meant evil) until it becomes oppressive. So, Unless I'm just not understanding you, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

Also, if there is no point where the darker aspects of the son are NOT considered evil, then how does radicalism come to play here? If one side is completely evil, no matter how much it meets the opposite side in the middle, then the only way to not be evil, is by leaning all the way to the opposite side, right?

Let me make it crystal clear to you. Violence is not an act of the dark side unless you are being oppressive.

The dark itself is evil incarnate. What keeps it in check is the light. The light tames the dark. But you cannot say: "Oh, dark is good with light.", it does not work that way. The Son does represent a radical force, but that does not mean he WAS always like that. And his descend into base desires had nothing to do with his sister or his 'father'. It was done on his own accord, not influenced by any outside source. Also, when The Father said that his descend to the dark side causes the Sith to win ground he most likely meant that he found some small "cracks"(Shatterpoints, if you will) through Mortis which he was able to use and indirectly(and barely) influence his own hold over the galaxy to make Mortis imbalanced and weaken his father's domination over them.

Galan007
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
The Son does represent a radical force, but that does not mean he WAS always like that. And his descend into base desires had nothing to do with his sister or his 'father'. It was done on his own accord, not influenced by any outside source. Not entirely true.

The Father: "You have done what is forbidden. You have chosen the dark side, and allowed it to feed your anger and desire for power."
The Son: "By bringing the Chosen One here, you have shown me my potential. You have only yourself to blame."
The Father: "Do not do this, my son. Do not become what you should not."

As mentioned, the strong implication is that The Son was never 'evil' until the Mortis trilogy itself -- his affinity towards the dark side had been kept in check in the eons prior to that. The Father allowing Anakin(and co) to enter Mortis was the catalyst for The Son's descent into the dark side.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Also, when The Father said that his descend to the dark side causes the Sith to win ground he most likely meant that he found some small "cracks"(Shatterpoints, if you will) through Mortis which he was able to use and indirectly(and barely) influence his own hold over the galaxy to make Mortis imbalanced and weaken his father's domination over them. When The Daughter died, the balance on Mortis shifted heavily towards the dark side. As such, The Son(who had now fully embraced the dark side) became more powerful, which in turn strengthened the dark side/Sith in the material realm.

IOW, The Son's power as a Force Anchorite directly influenced the dark side on a galactic scale.

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Let me make it crystal clear to you. Violence is not an act of the dark side unless you are being oppressive.

The dark itself is evil incarnate. What keeps it in check is the light. The light tames the dark. But you cannot say: "Oh, dark is good with light.", it does not work that way. The Son does represent a radical force, but that does not mean he WAS always like that.


If the dark is kept in check by the light and only used for the greater good or when absolutely necessary, then I don't believe it should be considered evil. I don't think someone is evil unless they intend to make bad choices for their own personal gain. Because at the end of the day, the dark is a natural part of everyone, and the light needs it, just as the dark needs the light.

It seems like you would agree with that notion, considering your use of the term radicalism, but for some odd reason, you're just saying you disagree.

Dominis
Watching the Mortis trilogy, and it seems I misremembered some stuff so far.

When Anakin had reminded Daughter that he had saved her from being crushed after being scolded for touching her, I initially thought she said that it was her brother's job to save her, which is why I kept saying it was his job to protect her, but that is not what she said. What she actually said was "that was my brother's work," referring to the collapsed mountain that nearly crushed her.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Galan007
Not entirely true.

The Father: "You have done what is forbidden. You have chosen the dark side, and allowed it to feed your anger and desire for power."
The Son: "By bringing the Chosen One here, you have shown me my potential. You have only yourself to blame."
The Father: "Do not do this, my son. Do not become what you should not."

As mentioned, the strong implication is that The Son was never 'evil' until the Mortis trilogy itself -- his affinity towards the dark side had been kept in check in the eons prior to that. The Father allowing Anakin(and co) to enter Mortis was the catalyst for The Son's descent into the dark side.

When The Daughter died, the balance on Mortis shifted heavily towards the dark side. As such, The Son(who had now fully embraced the dark side) became more powerful, which in turn strengthened the dark side/Sith in the material realm.

IOW, The Son's power as a Force Anchorite directly influenced the dark side on a galactic scale.

1. Please, re-read my statements. I never said The Son was evil from the beginning. I said he came to be a radical force when he started to give in to his animalistic desires. Satan was not evil in the beginning either. But he BECAME that. As about your other statement. You don't actually have proof that he was not "EVIL" before that. It is obvious that The Son is a deceitful entity. Surely he would not tell his "father" about what he intends to do and hide his corruptive nature.

In fact, Xendor mentions that through Arden Lynn:



Given that the Daughter says it is his nature could be implied that she was actually suspecting him of being "corrupt".

2. No, I do not believe that The Son directly influenced the galaxy due to his Force anchorite status. More logical to assume that he found small Shatterpoints that enabled him to do so.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
If the dark is kept in check by the light and only used for the greater good or when absolutely necessary, then I don't believe it should be considered evil. I don't think someone is evil unless they intend to make bad choices for their own personal gain. Because at the end of the day, the dark is a natural part of everyone, and the light needs it, just as the dark needs the light.

It seems like you would agree with that notion, considering your use of the term radicalism, but for some odd reason, you're just saying you disagree.

Because the dark is evil. The light keeps it in check. If you had thoughts to crush your father's head because he made you angry, but you restrained yourself. Tell me again that anger was good? Was it? No. But you control yourself. That was what The Son forgot to do. He kept giving in to his animalistic desires more and more.

Galan007
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
You don't actually have proof that he was not "EVIL" before that. It is obvious that The Son is a deceitful entity. Surely he would not tell his "father" about what he intends to do and hide his corruptive nature. The proof is in the dialogue I posted-

The Father: "You have done what is forbidden. You have chosen the dark side, and allowed it to feed your anger and desire for power."
The Son: "By bringing the Chosen One here, you have shown me my potential. You have only yourself to blame."
The Father: "Do not do this, my son. Do not become what you should not."

When The Son fully embraced the dark side, and became 'evil', The Father immediately sensed it and warned him not to continue down that path... And *the* catalyst for his complete descent into the dark side was Anakin arriving on Mortis(as The Son himself explicitly states.) So again: the heavy implication is that prior to the events of the Mortis trilogy itself, The Son's inherent 'evil' had been kept in check -- he was not using the dark side to 'feed' himself/boost his power. That is what disrupted the balance, and why The Father stated he was doing the "forbidden".

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
In fact, Xendor mentions that through Arden Lynn: Yes, The Son and The Daughter embody the dark and light aspects of the Force respectively. That doesn't mean The Son had been using the dark side to further empower himself and subvert the balance on Mortis, though... That only happened when he completely embraced the dark side and became 'evil'(which, again, only occurred in the story itself.)

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Given that the Daughter says it is his nature could be implied that she was actually suspecting him of being "corrupt". Of course The Son has a natural affinity toward the dark side, given that he is an anchorite/embodiment OF the dark side. But as mentioned: prior to the Mortis trilogy(when The Son truly became 'evil'), the implication is that he had not been actively using the dark side to fuel his power and disrupt the balance on Mortis... He and his sister were kept in balance for eons prior to Anakin's arrival(logically because he had not been using the dark side in such a way):
https://i.imgur.com/LtieLsI.jpg

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
2. No, I do not believe that The Son directly influenced the galaxy due to his Force anchorite status. More logical to assume that he found small Shatterpoints that enabled him to do so. How is that more logical? Cosmic-scale Shatterpoint exploitation was never mentioned, or even alluded to.

The Son is an anchorite for the cosmic Force. Mortis is a universal cosmic Force nexus. So when The Daughter was killed, and the balance on Mortis shifted heavily towards the dark side, The Son(who had now fully embraced the dark side) became more powerful. This subsequently strengthened the dark side/Sith in the material realm as a direct corollary.

The Father: "As the balance in this world crumbles, so shall war escalate in your galaxy... As my Son has descended into the dark side, so have the Sith gained strength."

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Because the dark is evil. The light keeps it in check. If you had thoughts to crush your father's head because he made you angry, but you restrained yourself. Tell me again that anger was good? Was it? No. But you control yourself. That was what The Son forgot to do. He kept giving in to his animalistic desires more and more.


It depends on why I stopped myself from doing it. Would it be because I knew it was wrong, and so I made a conscious choice not to crush his head? If that's the case, then no, I wouldn't consider myself evil for making a conscious choice to choose what is right over what is wrong.

You're saying the Son is the embodiment of evil, and he knows it. So why wait until Anakin shows him what his true potential would be like before turning completely against his father and sister? If he was intended to be completely evil and had no choice, then wouldn't he be victimizing himself by going against how nature intended him to be for all those eons? He'd be going well out of his way to be "good."

I think I kinda get what you're saying, I just disagree. I think with all the qualities that the Son does embody, it makes it easy to become selfish and evil. But I don't think the universe and the force intended him to be that way.

I don't agree with comparing the Son to the devil. While there are some similarities between them, none of them really seem to help with what you are arguing, IMHO. The Son embodies an aspect of the force that resides in all living creatures in SW, an aspect that is necessary. The devil doesn't, he is just the first being in creation to turn against God's love, and manipulated others into following his path, from some of the other angels (causing them to become demons like he himself became) to Adam and Eve (damaging the human race). There was nothing about the devil that made him any different from the other angels for him to do what he did. He had the same free will and chose to turn against God's love, he just happened to be the first to do it. In SW, the Sith had been cutting themselves off from the light, and using the force in such perverse ways well before the Son was completely consumed by evil. Hell, the sith's use of the force could be why the Son was gradually turning corrupt, since the dark is directly tied to him.

Dominis
Also, anger doesn't always lead to thoughts like "I want to crush my fathers head." But like I said, it is a quality that easily leads to such dark thoughts and, in some cases, action. But anger itself isn't evil, it just means you're very dissatisfied with something.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Galan007
The proof is in the dialogue I posted-

The Father: "You have done what is forbidden. You have chosen the dark side, and allowed it to feed your anger and desire for power."
The Son: "By bringing the Chosen One here, you have shown me my potential. You have only yourself to blame."
The Father: "Do not do this, my son. Do not become what you should not."

When The Son fully embraced the dark side, and became 'evil', The Father immediately sensed it and warned him not to continue down that path... And *the* catalyst for his complete descent into the dark side was Anakin arriving on Mortis(as The Son himself explicitly states.) So again: the heavy implication is that prior to the events of the Mortis trilogy itself, The Son's inherent 'evil' had been kept in check -- he was not using the dark side to 'feed' himself/boost his power. That is what disrupted the balance, and why The Father stated he was doing the "forbidden".

Yes, The Son and The Daughter embody the dark and light aspects of the Force respectively. That doesn't mean The Son had been using the dark side to further empower himself and subvert the balance on Mortis, though... That only happened when he completely embraced the dark side and became 'evil'(which, again, only occurred in the story itself.)

Of course The Son has a natural affinity toward the dark side, given that he is an anchorite/embodiment OF the dark side. But as mentioned: prior to the Mortis trilogy(when The Son truly became 'evil'), the implication is that he had not been actively using the dark side to fuel his power and disrupt the balance on Mortis... He and his sister were kept in balance for eons prior to Anakin's arrival(logically because he had not been using the dark side in such a way):
https://i.imgur.com/LtieLsI.jpg

How is that more logical? Cosmic-scale Shatterpoint exploitation was never mentioned, or even alluded to.

The Son is an anchorite for the cosmic Force. Mortis is a universal cosmic Force nexus. So when The Daughter was killed, and the balance on Mortis shifted heavily towards the dark side, The Son(who had now fully embraced the dark side) became more powerful. This subsequently strengthened the dark side/Sith in the material realm as a direct corollary.

The Father: "As the balance in this world crumbles, so shall war escalate in your galaxy... As my Son has descended into the dark side, so have the Sith gained strength."

And yet you say this in another of your post:


Originally posted by Galan007
The Siblings' infighting was one of the main reasons why The Father took them to Mortis in the first place. So yeah, they'd fight, and the fabric of the universe would tear because The Father wouldn't be around to check them


So, you want to tell me that The Son was not "evil" before the Mortis arc? What now, are you going to tell me that The Son was fighting his sister because no-reason?

It is obvious that it took The Father time to see that his child became corrupt. Otherwise why do you think The Daughter said that the darkness was in his nature?

It is obvious that after The Father took them to Mortis, The Son played low(hid his Force alignment) and waited for the opportunity to escape.

Look, I know that The Ones are partly cosmic aspects of The Force. But it is really illogical to say that they are The Force itself. When they were gone, all the galaxies should have been obliterated, but that did not happen.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
It depends on why I stopped myself from doing it. Would it be because I knew it was wrong, and so I made a conscious choice not to crush his head? If that's the case, then no, I wouldn't consider myself evil for making a conscious choice to choose what is right over what is wrong.

You're saying the Son is the embodiment of evil, and he knows it. So why wait until Anakin shows him what his true potential would be like before turning completely against his father and sister? If he was intended to be completely evil and had no choice, then wouldn't he be victimizing himself by going against how nature intended him to be for all those eons? He'd be going well out of his way to be "good."

I think I kinda get what you're saying, I just disagree. I think with all the qualities that the Son does embody, it makes it easy to become selfish and evil. But I don't think the universe and the force intended him to be that way.

I don't agree with comparing the Son to the devil. While there are some similarities between them, none of them really seem to help with what you are arguing, IMHO. The Son embodies an aspect of the force that resides in all living creatures in SW, an aspect that is necessary. The devil doesn't, he is just the first being in creation to turn against God's love, and manipulated others into following his path, from some of the other angels (causing them to become demons like he himself became) to Adam and Eve (damaging the human race). There was nothing about the devil that made him any different from the other angels for him to do what he did. He had the same free will and chose to turn against God's love, he just happened to be the first to do it. In SW, the Sith had been cutting themselves off from the light, and using the force in such perverse ways well before the Son was completely consumed by evil. Hell, the sith's use of the force could be why the Son was gradually turning corrupt, since the dark is directly tied to him.

Let's see:

1. Both Satan and The Son had fallen from grace.
2. Both Satan and The Son sought to seduce the Chosen One - Adam&Eve/Anakin to their cause
3. Both are considered embodiments of evil
4. Both were driven by a lust for power

And The Ones actually predate The Sith.

Let me show you how you contradict yourself:





First, you say that The Son's dark path was not set in stone, now you say that he is a necessary aspect of The Force.

Freedon Nadd
Originally posted by Dominis
Also, anger doesn't always lead to thoughts like "I want to crush my fathers head." But like I said, it is a quality that easily leads to such dark thoughts and, in some cases, action. But anger itself isn't evil, it just means you're very dissatisfied with something.

Any negative emotion is caused by something harmful done against you. If you give in, you succumb to that dark emotion. If you restrain yourself, you choose to hold onto light.

Galan007
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
And yet you say this in another of your post:

So, you want to tell me that The Son was not "evil" before the Mortis arc? What now, are you going to tell me that The Son was fighting his sister because no-reason? Yes, The Father withdrew his Children from the material realm because he feared that a conflict between them could cause irreparable damage to the universe... But it's safe to say that a fight of that magnitude never actually happened, so it is irrelevant to the point I am making here. Again, for eons prior to the Mortis arc, The Father had kept his children in balance:
https://i.imgur.com/LtieLsI.jpg

Hence The Father's implication that The Son "choosing" to empower himself with the dark side was something new(and forbidden)-
The Father: "You have done what is forbidden. You have chosen the dark side, and allowed it to feed your anger and desire for power."

And The Son's corresponding comment that Anakin's arrival on Mortis was the catalyst that made him fully embrace the dark side-
The Son: "By bringing the Chosen One here, you have shown me my potential. You have only yourself to blame."

And then The Father pleading with him not to go down that path-
The Father: "Do not do this, my son. Do not become what you should not."

Also, you realize that a natural rivalry between The Son and Daughter can still exist without him being 'evil', right?

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
It is obvious that it took The Father time to see that his child became corrupt. Otherwise why do you think The Daughter said that the darkness was in his nature? Because he's an embodiment/anchorite of the dark side. Of course he has a natural affinity toward such emotions. This does not preclude the notion that he had never fully embraced the dark side/evil in the eons prior to Anakin's arrival on Mortis, however.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
It is obvious that after The Father took them to Mortis, The Son played low(hid his Force alignment) and waited for the opportunity to escape. Sure. But as I said above: that doesn't mean his bonafide, dark-sided 'evil' had ever fully surfaced prior to the Mortis trilogy.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Look, I know that The Ones are partly cosmic aspects of The Force. But it is really illogical to say that they are The Force itself. When they were gone, all the galaxies should have been obliterated, but that did not happen. The Ones were embodiments/anchorites the cosmic Force, but they were still Force-users who obviously did not personify the entirety of the Force itself.

Dominis
Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Let's see:

1. Both Satan and The Son had fallen from grace.
2. Both Satan and The Son sought to seduce the Chosen One - Adam&Eve/Anakin to their cause
3. Both are considered embodiments of evil
4. Both were driven by a lust for power

I get that there are similarities, but I'm not sure how they are relevant to what you're getting at?

Satan is generally considered the embodiment of evil or the ultimate evil because it is believed that all the wickedness in the world can be tied back to him, since he is the first being in creation to go against God's love, and manipulated others into following him. The human race became damaged because of Adam and Eve, who were manipulated by Satan into going against God. It's not because he was an evil aspect of the universe that was just waiting for the right time to be evil the way you seem to be suggesting that the Son was. Satan isn't an aspect period. He was created just the same as every other angel.

Other than that they both did evil things, what is your point in comparing them?


Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
And The Ones actually predate The Sith.


Just saying that the Son had nothing to do with the evilness the sith were spreading throughout the galaxy for all those years. The Son still had an attachment to the light, his love for his sister, which I assume is what helped keep him from becoming completely evil, and is why he chose to stay on the right course for all those eons. The sith willfully cut themselves completely off from the light to become stronger with the dark side, and had been doing so well before the Son became fully consumed by his dark nature.

(IMO, I believe that by using too much of the dark side, the sith were unintentionally help causing the Son to become corrupt, since the Son is directly tied to the dark, which could have been the reason the Father was growing weak.The implication by the end of the trilogy seemed to be that the sith were the root of the problem, and that's why Anakin's destiny was to destroy Palpatine. Otherwise, staying on Mortis may have temporarily tamed the Son and daughter but wouldn't have fixed the problem with the force's balance.
It seems that just as how what happens on Mortis affects the galaxy, what happens in the galaxy affects Mortis.)


Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
First, you say that The Son's dark path was not set in stone, now you say that he is a necessary aspect of The Force.

Where is the contradiction?

Becoming evil was not set in stone. But the darker aspects of the force that he did embody is what made it easy for him to become evil.

Kinda like a person who has a predisposition to become an addict/alcoholic, doesn't make them an addict/alcoholic.


Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Any negative emotion is caused by something harmful done against you. If you give in, you succumb to that dark emotion. If you restrain yourself, you choose to hold onto light.


Not necessarily, but even so, those negative emotions is what makes an individual human. It's how one chooses to respond to those emotions that matters.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.