My views on this subject place me at odds with most of the SF community, but what the hey...they're wrong. I'm right.

Lets examine what the Jedi are:

1. They are priests wielding magic powers. Okay, thats fine. No thats better than fine.  No problem here, unless you're taking the view that all powers not directly from God are evil.  And the game designer, MJ Young argues that the Force is the god of the Star Wars universe (a most confused and illogical god, but thats neither here nor there.)

2. They also wield temporal power, in the government. Its not quite clear what the relationship of the Jedi Council to the Senate is, but its clear that the Jedi have at least the equivalent power of a major bueraucracy with police and diplomatic powers....hmmmh....I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with oh, the FBI being an official organ of the Roman Catholic Church or a Wiccan Coven. I wouldn't even be comfy with a Baptist church in charge of it...even though Baptists have historically one of the best records for dealing with power.

3. Jedi doctrine is that hate, fear, aggresssion are WRONG. Period. End stop. If you act from hatred, you are venturing onto the Dark Path.

To reiterate, there is no justification in Jedi doctrine for hatred.  Just because someone slaughtered your whole family, and littered on a public highway, and thinks Waterworld is a good movie rather than the worst big box office movie of the last century is not an excuse for hating them, or even feeling anger.

Let me state that I disagree with this.  My character Tadeusz would never become a Jedi Knight.  He would not want to become one of those losers would be his attitude.  His attitude would be more along the lines of "Get out of my way before I show you true power. I will show you the wrath of the Living God, and the power of a master mentalist which dwarfs your puny little powers." And all the while, he'd be showing anger...

As a Christian, I find their doctrine...inadequate.

4. Take children away from their parents, raise them to be celibate war-priests....and not to do anything about their parent who is wasting away in slavery...this was the point where I most profoundly disagreed with the Jedi.  Or perhaps thats most angrily.

5. Miticlorians...well, this would bar everyone from being a Jedi, not just Misty and Tadeusz.  Of course, this also makes the Jedi powers kind of Body skills in the Multiverser rule system. Of course, this Midichlorians is so lame that it almost qualifies as evil right there.  And as a good Star Wars fan, I have to join the rest in ignoring Lucas when he does such things.

Final Sum-up: No, the Jedi are not evil, but they are certainly not moral paragons to the average Westerner who actually thinks through what they are saying, instead of doing as most of the SF community does....eewwww, shiny light saber, can I have one?

Yes, Jedi are Munchkinism as a sugar coat to get you to accept ideas you probably wouldn't if you thought it through.

PT

I wasn't all that thrilled when "they" reworked the mystic concept of the Force to turn it into Miticlorians, some kind of beneficial space herpies.

That being said.  I think both the Sith and the Jedi are flawed.  One represents the emotional state of man, while the other represents the rational state of man.  Unfortunately, man is both rational and emotional.  Each of the two sides overlook an essential part of mankind to foster growth in the another.

If it were possible, the perfect fusion of humanity and the Force would result in a Grey Jedi, neither Light, nor Dark.

Have you ever read 'The Unifying Force', the last book of the Expanded Universe Series? It has a very interesting take, but basically to sum it up (as I see it) the whole point of the 'Yzong Vong' stuff was to point out that the force was out of balance because the Jedi point of view was disproptionately insane towards 'good'.  The Jedi at the end of it finally part ways, each starting their own path.  There might be a 'light side' and a 'dark side' but it is a much grayer thing than just 'Hate/Fear/Etc'...

So if your point is that the Old Republic philosophy is screwed up...yes.  It is.  That is actually one of the major themes of the first three movies and why Lucas deliberately had one of the most amazing casts assembled for a film act like wooden puppets. 'To reflect the lack of passion in the old republic.'...which is a sad sad statement on Lucas's directorial skills.  Once I saw the skill fo the actors in the movie in movies like Moulin Rouge...I was....disgusted.

And let me add that their probable reaction to Oak's Sovereign Lord would be to treat it as a 'quaint, neo-barbarian superstition.'

I do think the Force could probably be fitted inside Christianity if one wished to try, but I'm pretty sure Christianity could not be fitted inside the Force without doing irreparable and gross harm to the doctrines involved.

And as for Jhiaxus, well, he has summoned one of Odin's ravens, and while Odin would probably tolerate idolatry, he would not likely tolerate this namby-pamby stuff. If J becomes a Jedi, he's likely to incur the wrath of a god of battle and victory, a god noted for his fickleness...so next time he drops into a magic verse he's going to be in the soup.

I suspect Tomas and Kate would have no problem with becoming Jedi.  Avahur...well, he's too willing to kill and he's seeking adventure (and "a Jedi seeks not these things.")

One thing that has to be remembered about the Jedi.  They are tolerant in the old-fashioned sense of the word (well, somewhat, I'll get to that) in that they accept your worshipping your 'superstitions', but they are absolutely intolerant of diluting their religion.

And now for the 'somewhat'.  I totally forgot the Sith Lords.  That is, the Jedi are in a war of extermination with a rival religion.  So lets call them the Knights Templar on a Crusade to rid the holy land of the infidel.

I think they are a conglomeration of Buddist, Hindu, Christian, Muslin, Judiasm, and a bunch of other religions mismatched and put together. As anyone they can choose to be good or evil.



I think we understand that the Jedi Council as it were, was a bad idea. Seperation of Church and State isn't a bad thing. They are the appointed guardians of the galaxy, but what happened when they outgrew their mandate and decided they knew what was best? I think it was a rather good look on how anyone with too much power can be corrupted.



I think they take a good idea and go overboard with it. As a person, whose not as religious as most, acting from anger often leads to regret when the action is done. It makes it easier when we are dealing with bad people, but the philosophy isn't that bad if you take it with a grain of salt. As for leading to the Dark Side, I kinda agree, the more you justify your actions, the more you become like those you are fighting.



I think there is room in the philsophy, since they have expanded the universe. There are neutral Jedi, those who walk the balance between Light and Dark, and I would venture, most of the people here would be likeminded. I know I would be. The light side wants you to believe any dark action will lead to the darkside, and the darkside says get power by any means necessary. Like in all things, the middleground is probably where the truth lies.



I don't think you'd see many who would disagree. If you take Jedi as a faith only on what it is shown, it's not a very compassionate one. They have the "the good of the many is more than the good of the one" mantra, and it shows.



Complete and total bunk. It was Lucas's way to tie everything together, and include the "miracle birth" into his religion. Even Lucas admits it was a mistake, and stopped using it in the last two films.<DarkBlue>

Playtester:

Final Sum-up: No, the Jedi are not evil, but they are certainly not moral paragons to the average Westerner who actually thinks through what they are saying, instead of doing as most of the SF community does....eewwww, shiny light saber, can I have one?

Yes, Jedi are Munchkinism as a sugar coat to get you to accept ideas you probably wouldn't if you thought it through.

Some of the Jedi ideas are ones that are worthy of striving for, I think that a person who thinks for himself, can adapt some of their ideals and work with it

::grins::

I like to look at it from a mechanics point of view. The force is mind powers pure and simple, everything they do can be explained by them. The lightsaber is a interesting weapon, meant for killing, hard to use for disabling, kinda against their own Philsophy. Do I want a lightsaber, of coarse, do I want to deflect blaster bolts and projectiles with it, of coarse. Does it really have any connection to the force, no, it was a gimmic to allow Lucas to sell his movies, and later sell toys. With that said, it's a nice thought, and I wouldn't mind learning about a Jedi, and learning how to use a lightsaber. I think Star Wars would be interesting to see how the characters interact with the versers, end of story :)

I'd prefer the term 'Conquistador' as an anology instead because they also burn all records, artifacts and relics related to the other side as well.

PT summoned one of the Ravens, I just wanted magical healing :) This Jhiaxus never claimed to be a "Hand of Odin", he just went along with his ideas, as annoying as that KFC wannabe bird is :).

Grins and who said I would be a Jedi, I think The Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Jhiaxus has a good ring to it :)

Except for that whole, "Apprentice kills the master" thing, which holds true right up until the very end when Vader dies.  Better not teach anyone else. :)
This message was last edited by the player at 16:45, Wed 29 Mar 2006.

I've seen the movies, and played Knights of the Old Republic 1 and 2, as well as read the expanded universe, there is *NO* way I would teach anyone. Now if a hot Jedi woman wanted to "Redeem" me, well there are some things you have to let happen ;)

As for Jedi not getting married, that was a recent development. In the Old Republic, Jedi weren't restricted to that.

??? What do you mean?

Its the New Republic or before the Old Republic where they get married.  Its SW1-3 where they seem to have issues with it.

True Misty. Thats why I say "inadequate".

And Jhiaxus, you accepted the magical healing. You don't necessarily get to determine how it comes, and so now you owe Memory and Odin, and they are not the kind of gods to just laugh it off.

If you didn't want to be in debt, you should have just said 'no'.  Of course, you were dying at the time, so they had you kind of over the barrel, but Odin's not big on 'fair'.

Tom Day: "Conquistadores" could work.

PT

Pssh, I gave them plenty of death, and it wasn't magical healing, it was help to push the right switch, that is something I had a 50/50 chance on anyway, so I feel my debt has been repayed in kind. :)

I wasn't even referring to the new republic, I was talking Old Republic. In the Republic Era, they just needed some Anarchy to freshen the era :D

You can't forget, Day, that there were so few of them in the New Republic, that their rules couldn't be too harsh or everyone might quit lol.

Yay, I can become a Jedi! If I ever get to be one, I'll be the first Magician-Swordfighter-Buddhist-Jedi ever! ^_^

::stabs you through the throat with a lightsaber::

First, Last and quickest death, .345 seconds, new record :D

Good point. :)

To answer PT's original question, we need to know the definition of "good" and "evil".

If someone wants to define these in relative terms, and say that something is "evil" because that is what their parents taught them, or because it "feels" wrong, or because the majority of voters say so, or because their culture says so, then they will have difficulties in refuting someone else who had different parents, or different feelings, or different voters, or a different culture.

If the terms "good" vs. "evil" are to have any significance beyond "my preference" vs. "not my preference" -- that is, any universal significance -- then they must be defined with respect to an absolute standard.

For Oak, that absolute standard comes from the Sovereign LORD, the Creator of all things, as revealed in the Bible.

Now I'm not sure how this Heartwar version of the Jedi are going to be run, or even how they should be.  How was Obi Wan created?  Is he the result of Oak's deepest wish?

Since I PMed Jhiaxus in advance to let him know what Oak's deepest wishes were (and my wishes for going home, or going to heaven, or going to see Jesus during his ministry on earth, depended on those events actually happening and not just some illusion of them; therefore, we went with the Star Wars wish instead), I assume that Obi Wan is indeed the result of Oak's deepest wish.

If that is so, then since Oak's deepest wish (as specified in the PMs) was actually to learn a bunch of nifty psionic powers in a Christian version of Star Wars, where the power of the force was actually a result of faith in Christ, then that would certainly deal with some of the difficulties of whether the Jedi are "good", at least with respect to the absolute standard of the guy who dreamed them into existence.

However, if the way that a Heartwar's deepest wish works is that it would only create the Jedi as they existed in the movies, then there are certainly some serious doctrinal incompatibilities between Dreamer Oak's absolute standard and whatever standards the Jedi use.

So which kind of Jedi did Oak dream up?  The movie version, Oak's Christian version, or none of the above?  Only PT knows for sure... :D

BTW, Oak's preference was to gain the nifty (aka "munchkinoid" ;) psionic powers which can be used non-lethally.  (The shiny lightsaber I got was a bonus that Jhiaxus threw in for free. :)  I for one certainly wish that my lightsaber had a "stun" setting, since it seems to be a pretty lethal option.  Maybe I should have traded Misty for her phaser after all... :D
This message was last edited by the player at 22:21, Wed 29 Mar 2006.

I haven't read that PM, so I'm glad to hear of it.

Good can be defined by natural law (of which 'common sense' is a limited version), or by utilitarian means such as What Makes the Individual and the Culture most Likely to Thrive?  Or What Makes the Person Satisfied over the Long-term?

Such utilitarian questions verge perilously close to single-value moral systems such as the Samurai's where one abandons all moral virtues save obedience to the proper authority.  But any single-value moral system can be twisted up into knots.

The difference between the "Serve God" value system and such single-value systems is that Serving God is, at least I take it to be, a complex of values.  Or as the runner in Chariots of Fire is supposed to have said to his sister who questioned why he ran, instead of going about and winning souls...he replied that he could feel God smile when he ran.

Now 'winning souls' would be a single-value moral system.

Now I've wandered a bit astray from Oak's point.  Let me say, I have argued with a fellow who said that Hitler was wrong for this world, this culture, but in another world, another culture, he would not be neccessarily wrong.  I tried to argue that he would be wrong regardless.

Now I do hold a great deal of respect for natural law.  I believe there is wisdom embedded in our social customs that is not apparent to most people, and just changing things because some fellow gets a bright idea is perilous.  This makes me conservative.  For social issues, I go with the 'if its not broke, then don't upgrade it' viewpoint in general.

Now there are other value systems, including some that assert that values are merely the propaganda of those in power (which is in part true, but not enough), and other than a disdain for postmodernism, I don't really know that much.

PT